Agenda packet, regular meeting — Pacific Grove City Council, April 19, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD

REGULAR MEETING
Monday, January 9, 2023, 4:00 P.M.

THIS MEETING WAS HELD VIRTUALLY AND IS COMPLIANT WITH

THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALLOWING FOR A

DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE

BROWN ACT

MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL – 4:02 pm. Attending: Library Director Diana Godwin; Board members Faye Mueller-Delia, Tama Olver, Mary Ann Whitten; City Council Liaison Lori McDonnell. Absent: Heather Lazare, Marybeth Rinehart.

Member of the public: Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

In the absence of the chair, the meeting was called to order and conducted by Vice Chair Mary Ann Whitten.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mary Ann Whitten proposed moving item 6A (welcome Youth Ambassador Caitlin Botes and discussion of means for incorporating feedback from youth) to our March 2023 meeting. Motion: Approve the agenda as revised. Whitten/MuellerDelia. Approved unanimously 3/0/0.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion: Approve nomination of Heather Lazare as Chair of the Board. Olver/Mueller-Delia. Approved unanimously 3/0/0. Motion: Approve nomination of Mary Ann Whitten as Vice Chair and Tama Olver as Secretary. Mueller-Delia/Olver.

Approved unanimously 3/0/0. Vice Chair Whitten noted that approval of two new board members by the City Council is expected. She expressed deep appreciation of Faye MuellerDelia for her service to the Library Advisory Board and community.

2. COMMISSION/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Chair Whitten welcomed new City Council Liaison Lori McDonnell.

Library Director Godwin noted:

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 183

Page 2 of 3 ends

A. Children’s programs

1. Lisa Maddelena filled in while Mary was on vacation.

2. Lego night was held.

3. Music with Mary Lee will continue in Jewell Park for now, shall reconsider in spring and may move the event to the Library.

B. Teen programs

1. Anime/Manga meetups

2. SRP-painting

3. poetry 4/1 Acting Foolish Patrice Vecchione

4. MCGives! – raised over $37,000 for teen programs
C. Gallery – Harlem Renaissance closing reception on 1/6/23. Thanks to Lori McDonnell for participating.

D. Poet’s Perch

1. Working with Catrina for monthly events in 2023, January with help from youth ambassadors

2. Patrice Vecchione workshop

3. February - Big Sur poet Deva Munray & Overlapping Haloes

4. March – Mossberg

5. April-full - month of events

6. Meet the author committee is starting up again. Author Ava Homa of Daughter’s of Smoke will be the kick-off in April 20
E. Youth Ambassadors

1. Teen Tech starts Tuesday, January 10, 4-6 pm. A rotating group of youth will help with technology questions

2. Youth Ambassadors will assist with Patrice Vecchione workshop on Saturday 1/14
F. MOVe - Delivery of GEM is further delayed until TBD
G. Trial run of Library of Kitchen appliances/things is circulating to Friends & Families/LAB/staff only for the next month or so. Perhaps launch by the end of February.

3. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember McDonnell noted that she is excited to get involved in support of the Library.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT
Member of the public Inge Daumer noted that the public was unable to see Lori McDonnell on Zoom.

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Motion: Approve the minutes of the November 14, 2022, meeting. Whitten/Mueller-Delia.

The motion passed unanimously 3/0/0.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 184

Page 3 of 3 ends

REGULAR AGENDA

6. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS – Item 6.A was deferred to a future meeting.

7. NEW BUSINESS -- None
ADJOURNMENT – 4:20 pm.

Next Meeting: March 13, 2023 at 4pm, via Zoom.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 185
Agenda No. 10 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
MEETING DATE: April 19, 2023
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: February 9, 2023 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the minutes.

Attachments
Approved PC Minutes 02-09-23
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 186

PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, February 9, 2023, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA This meeting was held in Council Chambers and via Zoom webinar.

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL – Vice Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.

Members Present: Davison, Fredrickson (virtually), Kubica, Murphy, Nodzenski Member Absent: Lilley and Sawyer
Vice Chair Murphy introduced new Planning Commissioners Davison and Kubica.

2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Hold an election of Chair and Vice Chair, and appointment of Secretary, in accordance with the City's Boards, Committees, and Commissions Handbook.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Vice Chair Murphy called for nominations for Chairperson. Commissioner Fredrickson nominated current Chair Lilley. The Planning Commission unanimously elected Chair Lilley to a new term as Chairperson on a roll call vote. (5-0-2; Lilley and Sawyer absent) Vice Chair Murphy called for nominations for Vice Chairperson. Commissioner Nodzenski nominated current Vice Chair Murphy. The Planning Commission unanimously elected Vice Chair Murphy to a new term as Vice Chairperson on a roll call vote. (5-0-2; Lilley and Sawyer absent)
Vice Chair Murphy called for nominations for Secretary. No nominations were made and no further action was taken.

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Vice Chair Murphy asked if any Commissioners wanted to make any changes to the agenda.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 187
Commissioner Fredrickson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, to approve the agenda as proposed. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. (5-0-2; Lilley and Sawyer absent)

4. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Vice Chair Murphy announced that he attended a meeting of the Housing Advisory Committee on Monday, February 6th, 2023, and that Commissioners Kubica and Sawyer were also present at the meeting. He also announced the departure of Associate Planner Alex Othon, who has accepted a Senior Planner position in the City of Larkspur.

B. Staff Liaison Sidor announced that the Coastal Commission will consider the Monterey County Forest Health and Fire Resilience Public Works Plan on February 10th, 2023. He also announced that, per Planning Commission direction on January 12, 2023, CDD staff transmitted the 2022 Annual Report of the Planning Commission to the City Council on February 1, 2023, and reminded commissioners to coordinate through staff regarding contact with consultants and to not contact consultants directly.

C. CDD Director Anastacia Wyatt thanked Associate Planner Othon for his service to the City of Pacific Grove.

5. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Coletti welcomed the new Planning Commissioners Kubica and Davison.

He also announced that the City Council is engaged in formulating goals and has formed a subcommittee lead the effort. Council Member Coletti then commented on the City’s new Transparency Portal and the information available through the portal.

6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Public Comment
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Recommended Action: Receive public comment, if applicable.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
The following individuals submitted written public correspondence:

Lisa Ciani
Tony Ciani
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
No individuals provided verbal public comment at the meeting.

Staff Liaison Sidor summarized the written correspondence received.

CONSENT AGENDA

7. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
A. AB 2449 - Teleconference Rules for Attendance at Meetings of Legislative Bodies From: Laurel O'Halloran, Planner & Economic Development Coordinator Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 188
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive the report
Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Planner & Economic Development Coordinator

8. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the January 12, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes of the January 12, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. 2022 General Plan Annual Progress Report (APR)
Reference: Alex Othon, Associate Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: NA
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive and accept the General Plan Annual Progress Report (APR) for submittal to the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

Reference: Alex Othon, Associate Planner
C. Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR)
From: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive and accept the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) for submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director On a motion by Commissioner Nodzenski, seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the consent agenda was unanimously approved as presented on a roll call vote. (5-0-2; Lilley and Sawyer absent)

REGULAR AGENDA

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Administrative Architectural Permit (AAP) & Use Permit (UP) 22-0275 for 1201 Lincoln Avenue (APN 007-574-011)
From: Alex Othon, Associate Planner
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 189
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1 / Medium Density Residential (9.7 du/ac)
Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities
Recommended Action: Approve the project subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 1 CEQA exemption.

Reference: Alex Othon, Associate Planner
Vice Chair Murphy introduced the item. After receiving an oral report by Contract Planner Sidor, and testimony from the applicant (Samuel Pitnick), Vice Chair Murphy opened the public hearing and the following individual provided public comment: Inge Lorentzen Daumer. Vice Chair Murphy closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for deliberation.

After discussion, Commissioner Nodzenski made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kubica, to approve the project as presented. Vice Chair Murphy recommended a friendly amendment to amend the motion to include the CEQA exemption, and both Commissioners Nodzenski and Kubica accepted this friendly amendment. On a roll call vote, the motion was approved. (5-0-2; Lilley and Sawyer absent)

10. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Housing Element and General Plan Updates
From: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the Housing Element and General Plan updates.

Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director After comments from CDD Director Wyatt, Vice Chair Murphy opened the public hearing and no individuals provided public comment. Vice Chair Murphy closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for discussion.

No further action taken.

11. NEW BUSINESS
A. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project Discussion From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Hold a discussion on potential projects for consideration in the PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 190
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and direct staff to submit a recommendation to the Public Works Department.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Vice Chair Murphy introduced the item. After receiving an oral report by Contract Planner Sidor, Vice Chair Murphy opened the public hearing and no individuals provided public comment. Vice Chair Murphy closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for discussion.

After discussion, Vice Chair Murphy made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, to convey the Commission’s comments to the Public Works Department.

Upon further discussion, Vice Chair Murphy withdrew the motion.

Commissioner Kubica then made a substitute motion, seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, to continue the item to the regular meeting on March 9th, 2023. On a roll call vote, the motion was approved. (5-0-2; Lilley and Sawyer absent) B. Receive the Draft Planning Commission 2023 Workplan for Discussion From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive and review the draft 2023 Workplan, provide direction to staff, and continue to the March 2023 meeting for additional discussion if required.

After discussion, Vice Chair Murphy made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, to continue the item to the regular meeting on March 9th, 2023. On a roll call vote, the motion was approved. (5-0-2; Lilley and Sawyer absent)

12. PRESENTATIONS – None

13. NEXT MEETING – March 9, 2023

14. ADJOURNMENT – By order of the Chair, the meeting was adjourned at 6:58 pm.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 191
Agenda No. 11 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lori Frati, Management Analyst
MEETING DATE: April 19, 2023
SUBJECT: Approve a Resolution adopting the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution adopting the master fee schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24, including the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment and other changes as directed by Council.

DISCUSSION
Chapter 6.02 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) requires a schedule of fees to be reviewed annually in conjunction with the budget process and established by City Council resolution. Notice of the public hearing was published in accordance with PGMC Chapter 6.02 and relevant California Government Code sections.

In accordance with the process adopted by Council for FY 2012-13, the current fee schedule has been adjusted, where applicable, by the 4.9% increase in the Cost Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area for the period ending December 31, 2022. The CPI adjustment applies to all fees not controlled by other entities (e.g. State of California) or fees that are market driven (cemetery site sales, facility rentals, etc.). In addition to the CPI adjustment, staff has proposed changes to fees based on the City’s cost recovery policy (Council Policy No. 400-4) and Council’s direction to recover 100% of the costs associated with providing services to the public (with certain specific exceptions).

The attached Master Fee Schedule is structured to maintain the current fiscal year fees, with CPI increases, where appropriate, and to add the new proposed fees for FY 2023-24. Changes other than those that resulting from the application of the CPI and the Sewer Rate Study are highlighted on the schedule.

In the process of City departments reviewing their current fees, some services and fees have been deleted due to changes in policy or change of standard operational procedures within the department.

On page 24 of the fee schedule, staff has added a new page, titled Local Water Project. This fee represents the sale of reclaimed water at $0.0290 per gallon. This rate reflects the Fiscal Year 2023-24 rate that was identified in the attached DTA Peer Review of the City's Draft Local Water Business Plan PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 192
(LWPBP). The DTA peer review consisted of evaluating the assumptions, methodology and calculation used to determine the proposed reclaimed water rate described in the 2021 Business Plan, while also conducting a break-even rate analysis. The identified rate, with modest annual inflationary increases thereafter will strengthen the City's ability to recover costs. The fee does not exceed the City's costs of providing reclaimed water.

The City's Golf Course and Cemetery represent the Local Water Project's primary customer base. The Golf Course Lease Agreement currently includes a provision that caps the amount the tenant pays for recycled water based on specified demand levels. This increase in rates will allow the Local Water Project to bill the Golf Course Fund for any applicable amounts that are above the capped amount. The funds to support the additional water costs will primarily be supported by the percentage-based rent payments that were received in the last two fiscal years, as well as any forthcoming percentage-based rent receipts. In the interim, this will assist the Local Water Project in becoming more self-sufficient.

This proposed methodology, as well as the inclusion of the recycled water rate in the City's Master Fee Schedule was reviewed with the City Attorney, special legal counsel from Burke, Williams, and Sorenson, LLP; and the Local Water Project Subcommittee.

In an effort to achieve City Council goals and maintain compliance with relevant statutes, staff contracted with a fee study consultant, Matrix Consulting Group, to conduct a Comprehensive Fee Study, Development Impact Fees, and/or a Cost Allocation Plan. These studies also assist in evaluating cost-recovery rates and ensuring rates reflect changing staff processes and costs. The new fee study will also revisit the recycled water costs that were included in the DTA Peer Review to reflect any updated information. This study is anticipated to be completed in the Fall of FY 2023-24. An additional opportunity to adjust the fee schedule can be made available following the presentation of the Comprehensive Fee Study, with additional updates occurring in the following fiscal year.

OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Staff anticipates the recommended fee additions and changes correspond to the costs of providing services for FY 2023-24.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Draft Master Fee Schedule
CPI December 2022
Council Policy 400-4
Draft Resolution_Master Fee Schedule
DTA Peer Review
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 193
City of Pacific Grove

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

RECOMMENDED
FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 194

CONTENTS
General Administration (Fees Applicable to All Departments and Programs) 3 City Clerk 5
Cemetery 6
Community Development 10
Fire 19
Library 22
Lighthouse 23
Local Water Project 24
Police 25
Public Works 29
Recreation 30
Sewer 34
Sewer Rate Sheet 35
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 195
ACCT # GENERAL ADMINISTRATION F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
The City may bill for special services, such as support for special events, cleanup of hazardous materials spills, protection of public property and public safety due to unusual events. Billings may be waived or reduced by action of the City Manager.

Based on total
actual direct
and indirect
costs
01-4406 Document Photocopy and Report Fees (Soft or Hard) (per page) $0.25 $0.25 01-4406 Digital Production - CD, DVD, Flash drives for PRA information requests and presentations at meetings by the public (City will not allow the use of flash drives provided by the public for reasons of virus protection)
Actual Cost Actual Cost
01-4406 Notary fees (per signature)
* Unless otherwise specified in Government Code § 8211 $15.00 per signature
$15.00 per
signature
01-4513 Returned check processing (per item) $25 $25
01-4534 Credit Card Payment Processing Fee
$1.00 - $50.00 $2 $2
$51.00 - $100.00 $3 $3
$101.00 - $200.00 $5 $5
$201.00 - and up @ 4% of charged amount 4% of charged
amount
4% of
charged
Transient Occupancy Taxes may not be charged on a credit card 01-4406 Copy of Annual Budget or Annual Financial Report Actual Costs Actual Costs 01-4121 Business License Administration Fee, per License If paid by August 1 (on time payment/standard) $21 $22
If paid after August 1 (late payment) $47 $49
01-4674 City Hall Facility Rental Fees:

Security Deposit (SECURITY) $67 $70
Clean-up Fee Actual Costs Actual Costs
Special Audio Visual Equipment Use Deposit $267 $280
Council Chambers – first four hours of use $141 $148
per hour after four hours $35 $37
Forest Avenue Conference Room – first four hours $55 $58 per hour after four hours $14 $15
City Manager Conference Room – first four hours $111 $116 per hour after four hours $29 $30
01-4516 Fuel sales to outside agencies Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Water entitlement rights - Per Acre Foot Per Year $250,000 AFY
$250,000
AFY
Water entitlement rights - Per one tenth (.10) Acre Foot Per Year. $25,000 per .10 AFY
$25,000 per
.10 AFY
Water entitlement rights 30% discount expires 06/30/24
Water entitlement rights application processing fee. $461 $484 3 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 196
ACCT # GENERAL ADMINISTRATION F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
State fee Tobacco Retailer License $400 $386

FILMING FEES
Use of Public Areas for Motion Picture and Still Photography Productions (PGMC §16.64.030), Daily Fee Calculated for 100% Cost Recovery and Approved by the Administrative Services Director (May be reduced not more than 50% with City Manager approval) Minor Film Permit This is a permit would primarily apply to still photography and really minor filming applications such as little or no crew. This type of permit typically would only require review from Police Personnel with little to minimal involvement from other departments.
$154 $162
Mid-Level Film Permit This is a permit that would primarily apply to a major photoshoot or minor commercial filming application. It would require coordination between Police Personnel and Parks and Recreation staff for use of City property.
$523 $549
Major Film Permit This is a permit that would primarily apply to a major commercial filming - Movies or Television shows. It could be productions that would require building stages, sites with unique environmental or location conditions; or crews with crews of 30 or more personnel. This type of application review would require significant review and input from a variety of City staff, including Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works.
$851 $893
Land Lease for Filming (Fee subject to negotiation; fee study and recommended baseline amounts are provided for reference, parking lots may be charged by space)
.15 / square
foot per hour
.15 / square
foot per hour
The City Manager may decrease fees set forth in this schedule if s/he determines that the cost of providing a particular service will be substantially less than the normal cost of such service or if programs or services are reduced.

The City may, at its discretion, choose to apply a late payment fee to outstanding amounts due to the City that remain unpaid thirty days after the due date. The penalty will be set at 10% of the amount owed, but no less than $25.

Min. $25 Min. $25
4 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 197
ACCT # CITY CLERK F/Y 22-23 Fees Proposed F/Y
23-24 Fees
01-4406 CLERK CERTIFICATION
Certification of Pacific Grove Residency and or Proof of Life, per person $15 per signature $15 per signature Certification of Documents (Per document) $15 $15
01-4406 PUBLIC RECORDS
Copies standard 8.5" x 11", black and white
(ordinances, resolutions, campaign finance and economic statements) 0.25 per page 0.25 per page 01-4513 ELECTIONS
Under certain circumstances, the City must collect fees as prescribed by other governing bodies, such as the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The City has no control over these fees.

Nomination Papers Filing Fee (EC Section 10228) $25 $25 Candidates Statement Filing Set by County Set by County Intent to File Initiative (EC Section 9202(b)) $200 $200 Late filing fee per late day (As set forth by State) $10 $10 01-4513 MISCELLANOUS
Administrative Records (Compilation/Creation) Actual Costs Actual Costs Appeal Fee (Beautification, Traffic Commission, all others not listed elsewhere) $44 $46 Annual Subscription Service: Agenda and Minutes $29 $30 Agenda only - -
5 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 198
ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 22-23 Fees Proposed F/Y 23-24 Fees
75-4481 CEMETERY SITE SALES
Single Burial Site, Adult $4,812 $5,048
Single Burial Site, Child $2,408 $2,526
Double Garden Crypt-In Ground $8,336 $8,744
Urn Garden, Double-In Ground $3,596 $3,772
Urn Garden, Single-In Ground $2,251 $2,361
Urn Sites, Other than Urn Garden $2,438 $2,557
Urn Sites–Double Other than Urn Garden $3,998 $4,194
Urn Sites - Triple $4,297 $4,508
Columbarium Niche (1-4 urns) $7,991 $8,383
75-4482 Unit 1 – Mausoleum Single Niche $3,185 $3,341
Unit 1 – Mausoleum Double Niche $6,243 $6,549
Unit 1 – Mausoleum Single Crypt $15,046 $15,783
Unit 2 – Mausoleum Double Niche $6,243 $6,549
Unit 2 – Mausoleum Single Crypt $15,045 $15,782
Unit 2- Mausoleum Double Crypt $27,604 $28,957
Unit 2- Mausoleum Garden Memorial Vault – per urn $328 $344 Delete dup
entry
New Columbarium (1 - 4 urns) $7,991 $8,383
75-4481 Memorial Wall Plaque Site (Standered Size: 8 inches by 6 inches) $70 $73 86-4480 ENDOWMENT CARE
Burial Site, Adult $1,139 $1,195
Burial Site, Child $585 $614
Double Garden Crypt $1,139 $1,195
Urn Garden, Double $701 $735
Urn Garden, Single $626 $657
Urn Sites, Other than Urn Garden (In Ground, per Urn) $626 $657 Urn Sites, Double - Other Than Urn Garden $701 $735
Urn Sites - Triple $1,139 $1,195
Add (1-4 Urns) Columbarium Niche (1-4 urns) $765 $802
Mausoleum Single Niche $701 $735
Mausoleum Double Niche $765 $802
Mausoleum Memorial Garden Vault $128 $134
Mausoleum Crypt $765 $802
75-4484 LABOR CHARGES
Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee Excluding Memorial Garden Sites and Child Sites
$1,169 $1,226
Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee for Memorial Garden Vault Sites $293 $307 Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee for Child Sites $585 $614 Open/Close Burial Site, Adult $1,996 $2,094
Open/Close Burial Site, Child $993 $1,042
Open/Close Double Garden Crypt (1st opening) $1,857 $1,948 6 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 199
ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 22-23 Fees Proposed F/Y 23-24 Fees
Open/Close Double Garden Crypt (subsequent opening) $1,717 $1,801 Set In-Ground Marker $562 $590
Set In-Ground Marker with Border $840 $881
Set In-Ground Urn and Marker $854 $896
Set In-Ground Urn and Marker with Border $1,062 $1,114
Set or Remove In-Ground Vase $170 $178
Set In-Ground Vase with Border $377 $395
Add border to marker after original placement $562 $590 Add border to vase after original placement $413 $433
Remove In-Ground Urn & Marker or In-Ground Urn & marker with Border $274 $287 Remove In-Ground Marker or In-Ground Marker with Border $338 $355 Open Mausoleum Niche Unit 1 for inurnment $993 $1,042
Place plaque or vase on Unit 1 Mausoleum Niche at inurnment $207 $217 Place/Remove plaque or vase on Unit 1 Mausoleum Niche after inurnment $551 $578 Replace Vase Holder (Unit 1 Niche & Columbarium) - vase holder cost plus one & one-half hour labor
$238 + Vase
Pkg
$250 + Vase
Pkg
Remove Urn - Unit 1 Niche $274 $287
Open Mausoleum Niche Unit 2 for inurnment $786 $825
Place plaque or vase on Unit 2 Mausoleum Niche at inurnment $244 $256 Place/Remove plaque or vase on Unit 2 Mausoleum Niche after inurnment $446 $468 Replace Vase Holder (Unit 2 Niche, New Columbarium) – vase holder cost plus one hour labor
$170 + Vase
Pkg
$178 + Vase
Pkg
Remove Urn - Unit 2 Niche $274 $287
Open Columbarium Niche to Place Urn $1,133 $1,189
Place/Remove Plaque or Vase on Columbarium niche at Inurnment $139 $146 Place Plaque or Vase on Columbarium niche after Inurnment $621 $651 Remove Urn - Columbarium Niche $308 $323
Open New Columbarium Niche to Place Urn $647 $679
Place Plaque or Vase on New Columbarium niche $170 $178 Remove plaque or urn from New Columbarium niche $170 $178 Open Mausoleum Crypt for inurnment $924 $969
Open Mausoleum Crypt for burial $1,480 $1,553
Open Underground Unit 2 Mausoleum Crypt for Burial $1,758 $1,844 Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 1 Crypt at Burial $207 $217 Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 1 Crypt other than at Burial $446 $468 Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Unit 2 Crypt at Burial $139 $146 Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 2 Crypt after Burial $601 $630 7 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 200
ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 22-23 Fees Proposed F/Y 23-24 Fees
Open Memorial Garden Vault Site (place urn) $491 $515
Place Plaque on Memorial Garden Vault Site/Memorial Wall $170 $178 Remove Urn from Memorial Garden Vault Site $377 $395
Remove Plaque from Memorial Garden Vault Site/Memorial Wall $446 $468 Remove Niche/Crypt Slug $308 $323
Replace Cracked Mausoleum Granite Plate (Unit 1) $170 + Plate Cost
$178 + Plate
Cost
Place Cameos $170 Per Hour $178 Per Hour
Marker Rubbing $120 Per Hour $126 Per Hour
Disinter Casket, Double Garden Crypt (lower level) $1,486 $1,559 Disinter Casket, Double Garden Crypt (upper level) $1,340 $1,406 Disinter In-Ground Casket, Child $924 $969
Disinter In-Ground Casket, Adult $1,340 $1,406
Pallbearers – weekdays only $294 $308
Saturday Service (4-hour minimum at overtime rate) $586 $615 Hourly Rate (2-hour minimum)
$90 Per hour,
per staff
person -
Minimum 2
staff for 2
hours
($360)
$94 Per hour,
per staff
person -
Minimum 2
staff for 2
hours
($376)
Overtime Hourly Rate (2-hour minimum)
$98 Per hour
per staff
person -
Minimum 2
staff for 2
hours ($392)
$103 Per hour
per staff
person -
Minimum 2
staff for 2
hours ($412)
75-4481 DEED PROCESSING
Deed Fee $243 $255
Replacement Deed Fee $36 $38
Deed Transfers, Document Processing Fee $243 $255
State fee CA Disposition of Human Remain permit fee $13 $12 Endowment transfer fee: Upon transfer, the party transferring deed shall pay the difference between the endowment care rate paid with initial deed and the current endowment care rate.

Grounds Maintenance One-Time Fee. Upon transfer, the new site owner shall pay the one-time Grounds Maintenance Fee based on the type of burial site.
8 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 201
ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 22-23 Fees Proposed F/Y 23-24 Fees
75-4481 PRODUCTS
Adult Liner, Single At Cost At Cost
Liner, Double Garden Crypt (taxable portion) (Pre-set – charge sales tax only) At Cost At Cost Child Liner, Single At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – in-ground At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – Columbarium At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – Mausoleum Unit 1 At Cost At Cost
Vase Package B58– Mausoleum Unit 2 crypts At Cost At Cost Vase Package – Mausoleum Unit 2 niches At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – New Columbarium At Cost At Cost
Vase Holder - In-Ground At Cost At Cost
Vase Insert - In Ground At Cost At Cost
(1) The City Manager has the ability to approve a 10% resident discount on Cemetery Site sales only for a specified period of time during the year. This discount would be included in an advertisement and designed to assist with advance planning. 9 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 202
ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
01-4413 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS
General Plan Amendment (Actual Cost – Minimum fee plus hourly fee) $5,513 $5,783 General Plan Update
5% of
permit fee
5% of
permit fee
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Actual Cost – Minimum fee plus hourly fee)
$2,753 $2,888
01-4401 SUBDIVISIONS
Tentative Tract Map - Base $2,495 $2,617
Tentative Tract Map - Per Lot $302 $317
Final Tract Map - Base + Recording Fee $2,495 $2,617
Final Tract Map - Per Lot $386 $405
Lot Line Adjustment $2,058 $2,159
Final Parcel Map (plus recording fees) $2,180 $2,287
Tentative Parcel Map - Base $2,180 $2,287
Lot Mergers $2,073 $2,175
Certificate of Compliance (Min. fee plus hourly fee if more than 12 hours required plus applicable attorney fees)
$2,073 $2,175
01-4407 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)* - This represents a deposit for staffing time for a full EIR. All staff time will be charged at the fully-burdened rate against the deposit, along with all publishing and noticing costs 50% of EIR
cost
50% of EIR
cost
Exemption* $302 $317
Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declaration* $6,699 $7,027 Mitigation Monitoring $4,938 $5,180
Negative Declaration Addendum $4,938 $5,180
* Filing fees by external agencies not included
01-4607 Environmental Enhancement Fund (Fund 5) $2.40/sq. ft. $2.50/sq. ft. 01-4401 USE PERMITS
Use Permit and Amendments – Single Family $1,991 $2,089 Use Permit and Amendments – Multi-Family, Commercial, Institutional, all other uses (Actual cost – Minimum fee plus hourly fee)
$3,248 $3,407
Interpretations of Permitted Uses Lists $1,337 $1,403
Major administrative use permits $1,305 $1,369
Minor administrative use permits $1,287 $1,350
01-4401 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Architectural Permit – Single Family $3,318 $3,481
10 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 203
ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
Architectural Permit – Multi-Family four units or less $4,060 $4,259 Architectural Permit - Multi-Family five units or more $4,580 $4,804 Architectural Permit - Multi-Family units, each additional unit above the initial five units
$1,765 $1,851
Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, all others. 10,000 sq. ft. or less
$3,432 $3,600
Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, all others. 10,001-50,000 sq. ft.
$5,093 $5,343
Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, all others. 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft.
$10,287 $10,791
Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, all others. Over 100,000 sq. ft.
$13,095 $13,737
Administrative Architectural Permit $1,597 $1,675
Administrative Design Change $1,597 $1,675
01-4402 COUNTER REVIEW PERMITS
Counter Review & Determination - no new square footage (Plus hourly fee if more than ½ hour required)
$230 $241
Counter Review & Determination - new square footage (Plus hourly fee if more than 3 hours required)
$932 $978
Zoning Confirmation for Business License Permit $160 $168 Massage Permit Application $160 $168
01-4403 SIGN PERMITS
Downtown Sign Permit $595 $624
Administrative Sign Permit $932 $978
Sign Permit $2,437 $2,556
01-4754 HISTORIC REVIEW
Historic Demolition Permit $5,218 $5,474
Off-site relocation permit $5,218 $5,474
Historic Resources Inventory Determinations (Additions/Deletions) $1,995 $2,093 On-site relocation permit $2,609 $2,737
Historic Preservation Permit $1,887 $1,979
Initial Historic Screening $491 $515
* Historic Determination are not eligible for multiple permit discounts. 01-4401 VARIANCES
Variances and Amendments $2,771 $2,907
11 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 204
ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
Administrative Variances and Amendments $1,549 $1,625
01-4401 STORMWATER
Tier 3 and 4 – 15,000 square feet of impervious surface or greater (incl. 2 reviews)
$1,754 $1,840
Tier 2 – 5,000-15,000 square feet impervious surface (incl. 2 reviews) $1,169 $1,226 Tier 1 – 2,500-5,000 square feet impervious surface $735 $771 Each subsequent Tier 2 review $515 $540
Inspection Fee $137 $144
Annual Inspection and re-inspection $205 $215
Each subsequent Tier 1 review $324 $340
01-4401 APPEALS
Appeals of enforcement and zoning ordinance interpretations $2,652 $2,782 Appeals/hearings of planning permits
25% of base
permit fee or
$1,136
whichever is
greater +
noticing
costs
25% of base
permit fee
or
$1,192
whichever
is greater +
noticing
costs
Request for Zoning Administrative Hearing or Decision
10% of base
permit or
$544,
whichever is
greater +
noticing
costs
10% of base
permit or
$571,
whichever
is greater +
noticing
costs
Appeal fees for Coastal Development Permits are waived. 01-4401 OVERLAY FEES
Area of Special and Biological Significance 5% of
permit fees
5% of
permit fees
Butterfly Buffer 5% of
permit fees
5% of
permit fees
01-4401 NOTICING
Mailing Actual Cost Actual Cost
Publishing $379 $398
12 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 205
ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
01-4401 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
Waiver of De Minims Development plan permit $2,338 $2,453 Single Family Residence up to 1,500 square feet $2,338 $2,453 Single Family Residence over 1,500 square feet $4,093 $4,294 Multi-family Residential
$2,839 plus
$965 per
unit
$2,978 plus
$1,012 per
unit
Commercial or Industrial up to 10,000 sq. ft. $5,847 $6,134 Commercial or Industrial 10,001- 50,000 sq. ft. $11,691 $12,264 Commercial or Industrial 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft. $58,458 $61,322 Commercial or Industrial over 100,000 sq. ft. $116,917 $122,646 Grading less than 100 cubic yards $585 $614
Grading 101- 10,000 cubic yards $2,338 $2,453
Grading 10,001- 100,000 cubic yards+B16 $4,676 $4,905
Grading greater than 100,000 cubic yards $9,353 $9,811
Lot Line Adjustment $2,338 $2,453
Subdivision $2,338 per
lot
$2,4523 per
lot
Emergency Permit $1,754 $1,840
Amendment 50% of base
permit fee
50% of base
permit fee
Temporary Event $2,923 $3,066
Extension - Fee may be waived, if permit is subject to Water Waiting List 25% of base permit fee
25% of base
permit fee
01-4123 TRANSIENT USE LICENSES
Initial STR Application Review $413 $433
Application Renewal $253 $265
Annual License $680 $713
Home Sharing License Annual Renewal $191 $200
Initial Home Sharing License Application Review $349 $366 Transient License Change or Reprint Fee $32 $34
01-4503 CODE ENFORCEMENT
Abandonment or purchase of City property $3,514 $3,686
Abandoned Property Registration Fee $223 $234
Investigation fees, Code violations (Actual Cost) Actual Cost Actual Cost 01-4503 VACANT PROPERTIES
Inspection per property (min. or actual cost) $168 $176 Registration per property $168 $176
01-4406 COPIES
Copies, hard and soft (scanned) 0.25 per
page

0.25 per
page
13 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 206
ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
01-4401 MISCELLANEOUS
Certificate of Use and Occupancy $765 $802
County Filing Fees
As
determined
by County
As
determined
by County
Density bonus $2,265 $2,376
General File Research $64 $67
Hourly Fee $130 $136
Inquiry Fee $364 $382
Miscellaneous Project Review/Document Preparation $231 $242 Multiple Permits for Single Family residential applications only. Highest fee no discount; all lower fees discounted 25%
For single
family
applications
only
For single
family
applications
only
Outdoor Sidewalk Dining Permit $438 $459
Sidewalk Vendor Permit $49 $51
Permit Extension (Fee may be waived if permit is subject to Water Waiting List)
25% of
permit base
fee
25% of
permit base
fee
Pre-Application Meeting / Preliminary Project Review $269 $282 Records Management and Retention (per file) $58 $61
Rental Property Registration $238 $250
Revocable License for Encroachments (plus hourly fee after 2 hours) $870 $913 Statement of Compliance (hourly fee if more than 4 hours required) $491 $515 Tree Permit with Development $296 $311
Tree Permit with Development Violation $251 $263
ABC License Review Fee $183 $192
01-4425 ANIMAL REGULATION - KEEPING AND BREEDING PERMITS § 10 Animal Keeping Permit $182 $191
Animal Keeping Permit Annual Renewal $44 $46
Commercial Breeding Permit, Cats $155 $163
Commercial Breeding Permit, Dogs $155 $163
Incidental Breeding Permit, Cats (per litter) $77 $81
Incidental Breeding Permit, Dogs (per litter) $77 $81

MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES
01-4452 Tree Permit - Single Tree Removal or Single Tree Trimming $68 $71 Tree Permit – For each additional tree removal and/or trimming $31 $33 Tree Permit Application Fee $100 $105
01-4207 Tree replant in-lieu fee $859 $901
14 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 207
ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
15-4701 HOUSING FEES
Rehabilitation & Sewer Loan Payoff Demand - Per Statement $127 $133 Reconveyance Fee $193 $202
County Recording Fee (billed by Monterey County Recorder) Actual Cost Actual Cost 15-4701 HOUSING REHAB LOAN FEES (CalHOME Loan Funded Projects) Loan Processing $2,078 $2,180
Underwriting $639 $670
Property Tax Verification $64 $67
Loan Document Preparation – SFD $375 $393
Loan Document Preparation – Manufactured Housing $446 $468 Inspection To Determine Scope of Work (Actual Cost) $276 $290 Contractor Selection (Actual Cost) $276 $290
Development of Work Write-up & Specifications (Actual Cost) $2,638 $2,767 Project Bidding (Actual Cost) $1,285 $1,348
Progress Inspection/Payment Authorization (Actual Cost) $138 $145 15-4701 AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONITORING - ANNUAL FEE PER

HOUSEHOLD
Affordable Units (New description to include all property addresses listed above)
$127 $133
Registered Units $127 $133

BUILDING AND PERMITTING FEES
ACCT. # PLAN CHECK
01-4203 Electrical Permit (not requiring plan check) $146 $153 Plumbing Permit (not requiring plan check) $146 $153
Mechanical Permit (not requiring plan check) $146 $153
Solar voltaic system $316 $331
Non-Structural Plan Review (hourly not included in larger project) $141 $148 Structural Plan Review (hourly not included in a larger project) $173 $181 01-4404
Plan review extension
$715 per 90
days after
the first 180
days
$750 per 90
days after
the first 180
days
01-4203 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
Combination Permit:

Plan Checking — A combination permit fee shall be payable in cases of new construction in lieu of the separate fees. A plan review fee equal to 75 percent of the fee for singlefamily residential projects and 90 percent of the permit fee for all other projects shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review. Permit fees shall be based on the value of improvements as follows:
15 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 208
ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
Value up to $500.00 $135 $142
Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00(first $500.00) $135 $142
Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00 (each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof) $11 $12 Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (first $2,000.00) $286 $300 Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$47 $49
Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (first $25,000.00) $1,297 $1,361 Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$33 $35
Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (first $50,000.00) $2,086 $2,188 Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$20 $21
Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (first $100,000.00) $3,198 $3,355 Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
h f)
$16 $17
Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (first $500,000.00) $10,318 $10,824 Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
h f)
$15 $16
Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (first $1,000,000.00) $18,355 $19,254 Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$9 $9
Single Permit:

Value up to $500.00 $120 $126
Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00(first $500.00) $117 $123
Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00 (each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof) $6 $6 Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (first $2,000.00) $222 $233 Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$33 $35
Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (first $25,000.00) $942 $988 Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$21 $22
Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (first $50,000.00) $1,508 $1,582 Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$15 $16
16 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 209
ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (first $100,000.00) $2,285 $2,397 Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
h f)
$11 $12
Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (first $500,000.00) $7,309 $7,667 Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$10 $10
Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (first $1,000,000.00) $12,622 $13,240 Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$6 $6
The Valuation for new construction shall be the full cost (labor and materials) of the construction or a minimum of $250 per square foot (for a combination permit including plumbing, mechanical, electrical and building).

On-site storm water management plan review and inspection (assumes nonLow Impact Development; includes plan review of 1-hour and the required field inspections.)
$391 $410
Additional fee if LID requirements or additional time required, per hour $130 $136 Building Permits Extension
$1,197 per
90 days after
first 180
days
$1,197 per
90 days
after
first 180
days
01-4203 OTHER INSPECTIONS AND REVIEWS
The following are minimum hourly fees. If the total cost to the City is greater than the fees shown below, the actual cost shall be recovered. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, the hourly wages and benefits of the employees involved: and reimbursement for any professional services that are directly related to the inspection or review.

Inspections outside of normal business hours (4 hour minimum) $339 $356 Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of CBC § 108.8 $228 $239 Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated including but not limited to Historic preservation inspection fees
$142 $149
Traffic control plan review $179 $188
Change of Street Address $179 $188
Alternate methods of construction (hourly fee, 2 hour minimum) $359 $377 Owner/building surcharge in addition to permit fee 20% 20% Electric Vehicle Charging Station - residential $264 $277 17 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 210
ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
Electric Vehicle Charging Station - commercial $449 $471 Temporary Occupancy $359 $377
ASBS Stormwater Inspection Fee min. deposit (Fee calculation of 26 rainy season inspections)
$3,538 $3,711
Stormwater Annual Post-Construction BMP Inspection $205 $215 Additional plan review due to changes/additions/revisions to approved plans per hour (1/2 hour min.)
$110 $115
01-4404 Wireless Encroachment / Public Right of Way Permit. $502 $527 01-4203 Grading Inspection (hourly fee, 1-hour minimum) $110 $115 Grading Plan Checking (hourly fee, ½-hour minimum) $110 $115 01-4203 Excavation Review/Inspection (except utility companies) $276 $290 Residential Zoning Records Report (RZRR) & Sewer Lateral Report (combined)
$346 $363
Sewer Lateral Report Review $147 $154
Investigative fee for work without proper City permits
Cost equal
to the permit
cost plus
staff time to
investigate
Cost equal
to the
permit cost
plus staff
time to
investigate
01-4203 Excavation and Inspection Services
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (per hour with a ½- hour
ii )
$130 $136
Encroachment permit: street opening/excavation $249 $261 Encroachment permit: driveway $257 $270
Encroachment permit: sidewalk $170 $178
Encroachment: temporary (e.g., building construction requiring scaffolding in Right-of-Way
$257 $270
Encroachment permit: permanent underground (e.g. utility line) $257 $270 Encroachment permit: permanent above ground (e.g. retaining wall, fence, etc.)
$257 $270
Encroachment permit, annual charge for permanent above-ground encroachment (e.g. retaining wall, fence, etc.)
$3.55/ sq. ft. $3.72/ sq. ft.

Encroachment permit hourly processing fee, if more than 2 hours review or inspection required.
$130 $136
Annual encroachment permit (Encompasses up to 40 utility openings per year)
$9,259 $9,713
18 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 211
ACCT. # FIRE F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed F/Y
23-24 Fees

FIRE PREVENTION
01-4436 Fire Inspection/Permit Required Due to Materials, Processes, or Occupancies
Engine Company Inspections (internal inspection) No Charge No Charge Engine Company Inspections - First re-inspection No Charge No Charge Engine Company Inspections - Subsequent re inspections $98 $103 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections -initial inspection No Charge No Charge Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - First re-inspection No Charge No Charge Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Second re-inspection $108 $113 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Third re-inspection $217 $228 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Fourth & each reinspection$542 $569 Monterey Fee Annual Day Care Inspection (Six or more children) $71 $76 Community Care Facility Inspections
Monterey Fee Pre-Inspection Fee < 25 Occupants $155 $174 Monterey Fee > 25 Occupants $265 $304
Monterey Fee Fire Clearance Fee 7 – 50 Occupants $155 $174 Monterey Fee > 50 Occupants $265 $304
Monterey Fee Annual Inspection Fee 7 – 50 Occupants $155 $174 Monterey Fee > 50 Occupants $264 $304
High Rise Inspection $1,095 $1,149
Fire Plan review and inspections, trade show set-up review $71 $74 Fire hydrant flow test (per hydrant) $82 $86
Fireworks permit $204 $214
Special Event Tent/Canopy permit < 200 square feet (during regular business hours; after hours inspection fees vary based on overtime rates)
400 - 1,000 square feet $152 $159
1000 – 2,000 square feet $210 $220
>2,000 square feet $265 $278
Unauthorized Work Double
Permit Fee
Double Permit
Fee
Unauthorized Occupancy $108 $113
Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Residential
10% of
Building Plan
Check Fee
10% of
Building Plan
Check Fee
19 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 212
ACCT. # FIRE F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed F/Y
23-24 Fees
Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Commercial
20% of
Building
Plan Check
Fee
20% of
Building Plan
Check Fee
Project Consultation Fee
Fully
Burdened
Cost
Fully
Burdened Cost
Expedited Plan Checks
Fully
Burdened
Cost
Fully
Burdened Cost
Fire Service Underground systems: Plan
Check/Inspection/Flush (includes plan review, inspection, permit approval, Flush system)
$1,095 $1,149
Fire Sprinkler System Plan Review Fee - Internal $0 $0
Plan Review & Inspection (1-5 heads) in-house review $465 $488 Plan Review & Inspection (6-180 heads), in-house review $885 $928 Plan Review & Inspection (>181 heads), in-house review $885 $928 Added
language
Fire Protection System Plan Review and Inspection FeesAutomatic Fire Sprinkler System > 180 Heads (external review), i.e. new system
$714 +
contractor
cost
$714+
contractor cost
Added
language
Fire Sprinkler System Plan Review and Inspection Fee
(External)
$465 +
contractor
cost
$465 +
contractor cost
Added
language
Fixed Fire Extinguishing Systems Plan Review and
Inspection (Hood & Duct, Spray Boot and Clean Agent) —
New System
$885 $928
Added
language
Fixed Fire Extinguishing Systems Plan Review and
Inspection (Hood & Duct, Spray Boot and Clean Agent) —
Alterations, relocation, or addition
$570 $598
Added
language Fire Alarm System Plan Review and Inspection
$658 $690
Added
language
Fire Alarm System Plan Review and Inspection– (external review)
Variable Variable
Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) Installation, Review & Inspection $255 $267 Medical Gas Review & Inspection $255 $267
Special Events Stand-By (Fire) Actual Costs Actual Costs Hazardous Materials Response Actual Costs Actual Costs
New Fee Defensible Space Inspection $174
20 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 213
ACCT. # FIRE F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed F/Y
23-24 Fees
01-4502
Penalty if appointment is made for a system test or inspection and contractor/developer (or their representative) is not ready and did not call to cancel/reschedule.

Actual Costs Actual Costs
DUI Response
Fully
Burdened
Cost
Fully
Burdened Cost

ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTS
Fire Alarm System False Alarm Response
01-4439 First call in 12-month period - No charge $0 $0 Monterey Fee Second call in 12-month period $21 $50
Monterey Fee Third call in 12-month period $33 $100
Monterey Fee Fourth call in 12-month period $65 $250
Monterey Fee Fifth call in 12-month period $108 $500
Monterey Fee 6th and all subsequent calls $542 $500
01-4439
Vehicle and Apparatus Rates - Based on CA Office of
Emergency Services (OES) Rates (updated by the OES
annually) – Charged per incident (All OES rates not listed here within, published on OES website will apply)
Sedan $119 $120
Pickup/Utility $135 $127
SUV $194 $197
Van $191 $194
Other-Rescue) – ¾ ton and above $224 $235
POV (Privately Owned Vehicle) Rate per mile $0.585 $0.656 Apparatus GPM Hourly Rates:

Fire engines
changed 1 - 1000 (E6433) (6414 and 6424) $127 $142
Delete-no
longer in use
1,501 – 2,000 (T 6474) $140 Delete

HYPERBARIC CHAMBER
04-4609 Carbon Monoxide Treatment $1,127 $1,182
Standard Hyperbaric Treatment for Decompression Illness (first 5 hours)
$6,323 $6,633
Standard Hyperbaric Treatment Extensions (per each 75
minutes of extended treatment)
$598 $627
Facility Use Fee - Per Hour - In lieu of Treatment Fees (First hour)
$1,265 $1,327
Fees not paid within a reasonable period of time will be subject to the City’s late payment fee.

Min. $25 Min. $25
21 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 214
ACCT. # LIBRARY F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
01-4455 OTHER FEES AND RENTALS
Photocopies (per black & white copy) $0.15 $0.15
Photocopies (per color copy) $0.25 $0.25
Computer printout (per page) $0.15 $0.15
01-4455 CARD REPLACEMENT
Replace borrower’s card $3 $3
01-4455 LOST /DAMAGED MATERIAL REPLACEMENT/REPAIR
Re-cataloging/processing charge for lost book or recording $3 $3 Charges for lost or damaged items will be made at "Cost, replacement price " as listed in the item record of the Koha Library Catalog. Actual Cost Actual Cost 22 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 215
ACCT. # POINT PINOS LIGHTHOUSE
F/Y 22-23
Adult
Fees
F/Y 22-23
Children 7-17
Fees
F/Y 23-24
Adult
Fees
F/Y 23-24
Children 7-17
Fees
01-4451 Pt. Pinos Lighthouse Entrance Fee (Suggested
Donation) $5 $2 $5 $2
Private Lighthouse Tour Fee (Tours
organized by schools and non-profit entities
are not subject to Lighthouse Fees.)
$135 based on
2 hour fully
burden rate of
one staff
memeber cost
+ admission
fees based on
participants
$142 based on
2 hour fully
burden rate of
one staff
memeber cost
+ admission
fees based on
participants
23 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 216
ACCT. # LOCAL WATER PROJECT F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed F/Y
23-24
Fees
74-4475 Recycled Water Fee New Fee 0.0290 per
gallon
24 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 217
ACCT. # POLICE F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
01-4426 PARKING ENFORCEMENT, MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS

14.08.010 Parking on ice plant $48 $48

14.12.010 Parking on golf course $268 $268

14.12.020 Violation to turf – Golf Course/Park $64 $64

16.12.055 Tamper with chalk marks $125 $125

16.32.130 Parking on park grounds $48 $48

16.40.030 Storing vehicle on street $48 $48

16.40.040 Storing vehicle on street - Removal by Police $125 $125

16.40.045 Overnight Parking of Oversize Vehicles or Trailers (10pm-5am) $48 $48

16.40.050 Parking for repair $48 $48

16.40.060 Parallel parking $48 $48

16.40.070 Parallel parking, one-way street $48 $48

16.40.080 Parallel parking, one-way roadway $48 $48

16.40.110 Angle Parking $48 $48

16.40.130 Angle Parking/12” from barrier $48 $48

16.40.160 Parking Adjacent to Schools - Sign Compliance $48 $48

16.40.170 Parking On Narrow Streets $48 $48

16.40.185 Parking on North Side of Mermaid Avenue $48 $48

16.40.190 Failure to Set Parking Brake $91 $91

16.40.200(b) Parking Within 20’ of Intersection $48 $48

16.40.260 Temporary No Parking $48 $48

16.40.210 Peddlers, vendors - Unlawful Parking $48 $48

16.40.280 City Lots, Angle Parking $48 $48

16.40.290 City Lot, Use of Single Space Only $48 $48

16.40.300 City Lots, Reserved Spaces $48 $48

16.40.360(a) No Parking – Red Zone $48 $48

16.40.360(b-d) Curb markings – yellow/white/green $48 $48

16.40.360(f) Handicapped Zone $350 $350

16.40.430 Blocking Alley $48 $48

16.40.500 Bus Zone $48 $48

16.40.510-535 Overtime Parking or Evasion of Parking Restrictions $48 $48

16.40.540 Parking in Business District $48 $48

16.40.550 No Parking Anytime $48 $48

16.40.555 No Parking Certain Hours $48 $48

16.40.560 No Parking 4 am-6 am $48 $48

16.40.575 Parking - Commercial Vehicle in Residential 2:00 AM to 4:00 AM
$48 $48

16.40.580 Parking, Over Marked Space $48 $48

16.40.585 Parking in Privately Owned Lots $48 $48

16.40.610 Displaying Vehicle for Sale $48 $48

16.41.040 Resident Parking $48 $48

16.40.710 Electric Vehicle Violation $48 $48
25 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 218
ACCT. # POLICE F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees

16.42.100(a) Meter Violation – expired $48 $48

16.68.020 No tour bus parking $268 $268

16.68.030 Parked bus with engine running $268 $268

18.36.030 House Cars on Private Property $48 $48

18.36.040 House Cars on Streets /Public Property $48 $48 01-4501 5200 (a) No Front Plates $48 $48
5204 (a) No Current Tab Displayed $48 $48
4000 (a) Expired Registration $48 $48
21211 (b) Parking in bicycle path $48 $48
2500.1 Parked in Fire Lane $125 $125
22500(a) Parking in intersection $48 $48
22500(b) Parking in crosswalk $48 $48
22500(e) Parking driveway $48 $48
22500(f) Parking on sidewalk $48 $48
22500 (g) Obstructing Traffic $48 $48
22500(h) Double parking $48 $48
22500 (i) Blocking Wheelchair Access $350 $350
22502(a) Parking more than 18” from curb or on wrong side of roadway $48 $48 22505 (e) (1) Parked Wrong Way on One Way $48 $48
22507.8(a) Unauthorized parking in Handicapped zone $350 $350 22507.8 (c) (2) Parked in Crosshatched Portion of Disabled Space $350 $350 22514 Park, stop or leave vehicle within 15 feet of Fire hydrant $48 $48 22515 Unattended Vehicle with Engine On $48 $48
01-4502 Parking Citation Late Fee (If Not Paid or Contested within 21 Days) $25 $25 01-4502 Correctable Code Violation - Admin Fee $10 $10
01-4502 MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS
Municipal Code Violation - 1st Violation $100 $100
Municipal Code Violation - 2nd Violation within 1 year $200 $200 Municipal Code Violation - Each Additional Violation within 1 year $500 $500 Municipal Code Violation Late Fee (If Not Paid or Contested within 30 Days)
$25 $25
01-4204 ANIMAL REGULATION — DOG LICENSES - PGMC § 10.04.010 Annual Dog License Fee, Altered Dog $22 $23
Annual Dog License Fee, Unaltered Dog $50 $52
Dog License, Delinquent Penalty (after 30 days) $26 $27 Dog License, Replacement Tag $10 $10
01-4425 ANIMAL REGULATION - IMPOUND FEES - PGMC § 10.04.100 Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Licensed & Altered No Fee No Fee Impound Fee (2nd & Subsequent) Altered $85 $89
Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Unaltered $85 $89
26 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 219
ACCT. # POLICE F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
Impound Fee (2nd & Subsequent) Unaltered $171 $179
Boarding Fee, per day PG Kennels $41 $43
Boarding Fee, transported to SPCA $172 $184

ALARM REGISTRATION & RESPONSE
01-4429 Alarm Registration $36 $38
Alarm Renewal (within 30 Days of Alarm Permit Expiration Date) $5 $5 01-4504 False Alarm - First Response - Unpermitted Alarm $143 $150 False Alarm - First Response No Fee No Fee
False Alarm - Second Response $61 $64
False Alarm - Third Response $171 $179
False Alarm - Fourth Response $283 $297
False Alarm - Fifth and Subsequent Response $397 $416
Duress/Panic/Robbery Alarm Violation $341 $358
Late Fee (if not paid within 30 days) $27 $28
01-4502 ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS
Accident Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $10 $10 Booking Fee $30 $31
Clearance Letter – No Record on File $35 $37
Clearance Letter – Record on File $46 $48
Crime Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $11 $12 Information Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $5 $5 Evidence Video Reproduction $43 $45
Fingerprint Processing (Live Scan administration) $30 $30 Removal of Traffic Boot $134 $141
Repossession Receipt $16 $16
Sign-off of tickets by other agencies $17 $18
Vehicle Release Fee $227 $238
01-4205 PARKING PERMITS & FEES
Contractor’s Parking Permit, Monthly $42 $44
Parking Meter Rate per Hour $2 $2
Public Parking Lot Permit Processing, Delinquency Penalty $27 $28 Public Parking Lot Permit, Annual $386 $405
Public Parking Lot Permit, 12-Month, TRANSFERABLE $491 $515 Public Parking Lot Permit, Monthly $42 $44
Residential Parking Permit Processing, per permit, Annual $11 $12 Temporary Overnight Parking Permit Program - Initial Residential Registration
$25 $26
Temporary Overnight Parking - 72 Hour Resident Permit $4 $4 27 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 220
ACCT. # POLICE F/Y 22-23
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
Fees
Temporary Overnight Parking Permit - Weekly - Exemption $95 $100 Temporary Overnight Parking Permit - Annual - Exemption $397 $416 Timed Space - Daily $5 $5
01-4421 POLICE RESPONSE - DUI, Peace Disturbance, Social Hosting, & Special Events
Police Commander Hourly Rate $210 $220
Police Sergeant Hourly Rate $201 $211
Police Officer Hourly Rate $177 $186
Police Services, Animal Control & Parking Enforcement Community Service Officer Hourly Rate
$149 $156
Patrol Vehicle Hourly Rate $61 $64
01-4201 MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS & DEPOSITS
Amplified Sound Permit $85 $89
Drone Permit Fee - Daily $22 $23
Drone Permit Fee - Annual $83 $87
Firearms Storage: Administrative Release Fee $425 $446
Garage Sale Permit Processing $10 $10
Duplicate
entry CDD
Massage Permit $25 -
Refuse Container or Storage Container Permit $56 $59
Refuse Container or Storage Container Permit Renewal/Extension $29 $30 Transportation of Large Structure deposit – variable fee based on size/type of structure - unused portion to be reimbursed
$214 $224
Transportation of Large Structure permit – per structure $609 $639 28 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 221
ACCT. # PUBLIC WORKS FEES F/Y 22-23 Fees Proposed F/Y
23-24 Fees
01-4445 MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Requested Special Traffic Review (Personnel time to be charged based on time and hourly rate)
Charged at
hourly rate per
contract
Charged at
hourly rate per
contract
Banner Installation and Removal (Downtown Street Lights) per pole
$45 $47
Memorial Bench (1) Fee represents labor costs associated with installing the bench. Materials for bench are charged at the additional actual cost.
$428 $449
Memorial Bench maintenance (5 years) $552 $579
Memorial Tree Fee represents labor costs associated with the planting the tree. Tree to be charged at cost. This cost will be in addition to the labor fee.
$997 $1,046
Tree Permit violation (minimum $218 or cost of tree replacement or $1,000)
Min. $208 Min. $218
Annual Solid Waste Exemption Application $92 $97
Trash receptacle left on sidewalk/street Violation PGMC 9.16.030 $88 $92 Tree Appeal $225 $236
Newsrack Annual Application Fee $58 $61
Newsrack Program Fee Half Rack $38 $40
Newsrack Program Fee Full Rack $80 $84
Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations Equivalent to
PG&E Peak
Demand Rate
(kWh) for
Business
Electric Vehicle
Rate Plans,
BEV-1
Equivalent to
PG&E Peak
Demand Rate
(kWh) for
Business
Electric Vehicle
Rate Plans, BEV1
01-4445
Equipment Use Charges
(when responding to emergencies on private property)
Current FEMA Schedule of Equipment Rates
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/136901 (Personnel to be charged based on time and hourly rate) Standard size barricade, each per day ($100 deposit required) $3 $3 Four-foot delineator, each per day ($100 deposit required) $4 $4 Eight-foot barricade, each per day ($100 deposit required) $11 $12 18-inch traffic cone, each per day ($100 deposit required) $3 $3 24-inch traffic cone, each per day ($100 deposit required) $3 $3 Temporary Directional Signage Per Day $3 $3
Temporary Parking Signage Per Day $2 $2
(1) The Memorial Bench is charged at the listed fee, plus the actual cost of the bench.
29 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 222
ACCT. # RECREATION
FY 22-23
Resident/
Non-Profit
F/Y 22-23
NonResident /
Commercial
Proposed FY
23-24
Resident/
Non-Profit
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
NonResident /
Commercial
01-4467 PRE-SCHOOL (MONTHLY FEES)
2 Days Per Week $188 $207 $197 $217
3 Days Per Week $296 $328 $311 $344
5 Days Per Week $482 $536 $506 $562
01-4462 YOUTH SPORTS $94 $103 $99 $108
01-4463 PROGRAMS
Full Day Youth Camp (5 day week) $188 $207 $197 $217
Full Day Youth Camp (4 day week) $150 $167 $157 $175
Full Day Youth Camp (3 day week) $111 $124 $116 $130
Daily Drop-In (per Day) $43 $47 $45 $49
01-4462 YOUTH CENTER PROGRAM
Membership (per Semester) provides free daily admission & discount at Dances
$76 $76 $80 $80
Membership (for the School Year) provides free daily
admission & discount at Dances
$129 $128 $135 $134
Daily Admission $2 $2 $2 $2
Dance Admission $10 $10 $10 $10
01-4467 SWIMMING (during the Summer Season)
Progressive Swim Lessons, 8 class sessions, per child $78 $88 $82 $92 Private Swim Lessons, per class, per child per 20 minute lesson $36 $41 $38 $43 Semi-private Swim Lessons, per class, per child (2 students required) per 20 minute lesson Group Swim Lessons
$20 $22 $21 $23
Recreational Swimming: Lovers Point, (After Lessons - 2:30 - 4:30) Monday-Thursday
$3 $3 $3 $3
Recreational Swimming: Lovers Point, (during full-day
offering noon - 4:30) mostly Friday, Saturday, Sunday & Holidays
$5 $6 $5 $6
Family Card (50 Lovers Point Swims Monday-Thursday, or 25 Lovers Point Swims on Fri, Sat, Sun & Holidays)
$85 $95 $89 $100
Private use of swimming pool (rental fee per hour) Subject to Rental
Policies
$107 $180 $112 $189
01-4462 OTHER PROGRAMS, CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS
Contractual Agreements for Recreational Programs in Facilities and Parks
Contract Contract Contract Contract
Adult Contract Recreation Programs Contract Contract Contract Contract Youth Special Trips/Excursions (85% of cost) Contract Contract Contract Contract The City Manager or his designee may reduce Recreation fees based on unanticipated reductions in activity days/hours. 30 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 223
ACCT. # RECREATION
FY 22-23
Resident/
Non-Profit
F/Y 22-23
NonResident /
Commercial
Proposed FY
23-24
Resident/
Non-Profit
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
NonResident /
Commercial
01-4670 FACILITY RENTAL
Programs, activities, or events that are co-sponsored by the Pacific Grove Recreation Department and non- profit recreation organizations are not subject to facility rental fees. The City also does not charge facility rental fees for official City of Pacific Grove activities and those of any other public agency that has a reciprocal use arrangement with the City.

Picnic Facility Reservation Permit: Caledonia, George
Washington, Arnett Park, and similar Picnic Facilities
1 – 50 persons 39 66 $41 $69
51 + persons 94 163 $99 $171
Court Reservation Fees: Volleyball, Basketball, Tennis and Pickleball $21 $39
$22 $41
Parks/Facilities Reservable (under Contract) w/ Liability Insurance Contract Contract Contract Contract
Community Center, Lebeck Room (2 hr. minimum rental) $111 $196 $116 $206 Community Center, Lebeck Room – Security Deposit $531 $531 $557 $557 Community Center, Kuwatani/Scout Room per hr. (Minimum of 2 hours) $38 $65 $40 $68
Chautauqua Hall Facility 2 hr. minimum rental) $428 $748 $449 $785 Chautauqua Hall Facility – Security Deposit $531 $531 $557 $557 Youth Center (2 hr. minimum rental) $111 $196 $116 $206 Youth Center Meeting Room $38 $65 $40 $68
Little House at Jewell Park $18 $33 $19 $35
Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for 1 – 100 Persons (Special Events or Special Use)
$174 + $196
Damage
Deposit
$303 + $196
Damage
Deposit
$182 + $205
Damage
Deposit
$318 + $206
Damage
Deposit
Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for Over 100 Persons
(Special Events or Special Use) $364 $364 $382 $382
Lovers Point Wedding or Staging Area; Berwick Park, Jewell Park, Pt. Pinos Lighthouse and Elmarie Dyke Gazebo
reservation fee per hour. (Minimum 2 hours Min.)
$179 + $197
Damage
Deposit
$333 + $196
Damage
Deposit
$187 + $207
Damage
Deposit
$349 + $206
Damage
Deposit
Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for 1 – 100 Persons $181 $181 $190 $190 Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for over 100 Persons $364 $364 $382 $382 31 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 224
ACCT. # RECREATION
FY 22-23
Resident/
Non-Profit
F/Y 22-23
NonResident /
Commercial
Proposed FY
23-24
Resident/
Non-Profit
Proposed
F/Y 23-24
NonResident /
01-4670 MUNICIPAL SOFTBALL PARK RENTAL POLICY
Daily Use $214 $373 $224 $391
Field Use, Per Hour
$31 $53 $33 $56
Lights per hr. $27 $27 $28 $28
Staff, Per hour Fully
burdened rate
Fully
burdened rate
Fully
burdened rate
Fully
burdened rate
Restrooms (Previously charged under other Class rates) No charge No charge No charge No charge Deposit on daily rate (same as prior Class II, Class III, Class IV) $178 $178 $187 $187 01-4462 MISCELLANEOUS RECREATION FEES & CHARGES
Transfer Fee (transfers between classes and/or sessions) $5 $5 $5 $5 Refund Processing Fee (if within written time frame) 25% of refund 25% of refund 25% of refund 25% of refund

SPECIAL EVENT FEES
Application fee per event – Minimal Impact Events $25 $25 $26 $26 Application fee – Events with 1 – 999 participants $219 $219 $230 $230 Application fee – Events with more than 1,000 participants $800 $800 $839 $839 01-4462
SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS (Note: This is a
pass through of rates charged to the City by insurance carrier, so fees will change as premium rates change)
All private parties, wedding receptions, anniversaries, and events with or without alcohol or admissions fees Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Note: If insurance is provided by the event holder, the City requires $2,000,000 coverage per event and the City must be named as Additional Insured under the policy.

Programs, activities, or events that are co-sponsored by the Recreation Department and a civic, community, or local organization are not charged Softball Park Rental rates. The City also does not charge facility rental fees for official City of Pacific Grove activities and those of any other public agency that has a reciprocal use arrangement with the City. Fees for direct costs, such as staffing and utilities are charged to these entities.

HOLIDAYS

RESERVATIONS
Rental facilities will not be available on the following days: New Year’s Eve, New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, President’s Day, Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day and the day following, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. 32 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 225

RENTAL POLICIES
No verbal reservations will be accepted. Facility is not reserved until all fees have been paid and a contract has been executed. All reservations will be made on a first-come, first-served basis at a maximum of six months and a minimum of 10 working days prior to use. Cancellations result in loss of deposit and insurance fees. No refunds if cancelled within 10 business days of event. Park fees allow for a two-hour time block; deposit refund to be made within thirty days following event if City determines no damage resulted from usage.

1. The City may require appropriate deposits or extra payments for special charges incurred.

2. All renters of City facilities shall complete a rental application and have it on file with the Recreation Department. City facilities may not be sublet without the express authorization of City.

3. All senior citizen nutrition programs serving Pacific Grove residents are exempt from rental fees and charges.

4. To the fullest extent permitted by law, all renters shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees, both severally and collectively from and against any and all claims, liabilities, and losses whatsoever (including damages to property and injuries to or death of persons, court costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees), howsoever the same may be caused, except in cases of City’s sole negligence, resulting directly or indirectly from or arising out the negligence or willful misconduct of the renter, its employees, agents, subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable with respect to the performance of this Agreement and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the same shall include: (1) bodily injury, (2) death to any person or persons or, (3) injury to or destruction of tangible and/or property including that of the City, whether direct or consequential including the loss of use resulting therefrom. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity, which would otherwise exist as to any party or person described herein. The City, at its sole option, may choose to provide all or a portion of the defense of claims, damages, losses, liability, costs, and expenses as set forth above, and in such event, the renter shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from the costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, of such defense.”

5. Official Pacific Grove youth groups, under 18 years of age, will be allowed to use City facilities as Class I (no charge), scheduled at a time when a supervisor is on duty, with the approval of the City Manager, for activities on a space available basis. Examples of qualified users would be the PONY Baseball League, Pop Warner league, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts and Brownies.

6. If the person or organization imposes a cover charge, sells alcoholic beverages, or otherwise comes under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the City must be provided with evidence of a valid license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 33 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 226
ACCT. # SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AND CONNECTION FEES F/Y 22-23 Fees
Proposed F/Y
23-24
Fees
76-4471 Sewer Service Charge
6 Year Sewer
Rate Chart
Attached
6 Year Sewer
Rate Chart
Attached
76-4470 Sewer Connection Fee
85% of fee
charged by
M1W
85% of fee
charged by
M1W
34 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 227
Description Units 7/1/2019 7/1/2020 7/1/2021 7/1/2022 7/1/2023 7/1/2024 Business/Gov't Location/Each Business $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Residential-Vacant Each Living Unit $20.40 $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 Residential Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Residential/Apartments Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Residential/ApartmentsVacaEach Living Unit $20.40 $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 Condominium Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Condo/Retirement Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Minimum/Vacancy Location/Each Business $20.40 $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 Motel/Hotel Each Room $26.56 $27.26 $27.96 $28.70 $29.46 $30.22 Bed & Breakfast Inn Each Room $17.50 $17.96 $18.42 $18.92 $19.40 $19.92 Supermarkets Location $258.14 $264.90 $271.84 $278.98 $286.28 $293.78 Medical Office Each Licensed Physician $63.16 $64.82 $66.52 $68.26 $70.06 $71.88 Dental Office Each Licensed Dentist $87.10 $89.38 $91.72 $94.14 $96.60 $99.12 Rest Home/Convalescent Capacity $17.50 $17.96 $18.42 $18.92 $19.40 $19.92 General Hospital Capacity $103.64 $106.34 $109.14 $112.00 $114.92 $117.94 Animal Hospital Business $115.32 $118.34 $121.44 $124.62 $127.90 $131.24 Restaurant 1 meal/day Each Restaurant Seat $2.26 $2.32 $2.38 $2.44 $2.50 $2.56 Restaurant 2 meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $3.54 $3.64 $3.72 $3.82 $3.92 $4.04 Restaurant 3 meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $6.78 $6.96 $7.14 $7.34 $7.52 $7.72 Restaurant with Bar Each Restaurant Seat $6.78 $6.96 $7.14 $7.34 $7.52 $7.72 Bar Location/Each Business $102.66 $105.34 $108.10 $110.94 $113.84 $116.82 Nightclub Location/Each Business $307.68 $315.74 $324.00 $332.50 $341.20 $350.14 Takeout Food - Small Location/Each Business $114.66 $117.66 $120.74 $123.90 $127.14 $130.48 Takeout Food - Medium Location/Each Business $282.08 $289.48 $297.06 $304.84 $312.82 $321.02 Takeout Food - Large Location/Each Business $514.34 $527.82 $541.64 $555.84 $570.40 $585.34 Bakery Location/Each Business $92.98 $95.42 $97.92 $100.48 $103.12 $105.82 Theater Per Screen @ Each
Locatio
$152.54 $156.54 $160.64 $164.86 $169.18 $173.60
Bowling Center Location/Each Business $464.14 $476.30 $488.78 $501.58 $514.74 $528.22 Gym Per 500 members $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Mortuary Location/Each Business $125.36 $128.64 $132.02 $135.48 $139.02 $142.68 School (Minimum) Student Population $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 School (Grades 0-6) Student Population $0.66 $0.68 $0.70 $0.72 $0.74 $0.76 School (7-College) Student Population $1.28 $1.30 $1.34 $1.38 $1.42 $1.46 Boarding School Student Population $12.96 $13.30 $13.66 $14.02 $14.38 $14.76 Instructional Facility Student Population $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Church Per 100 members $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Photo / Laboratory /
Printer
Per 10 employees $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Service Station/Garage Location/Each Business $45.36 $46.54 $47.76 $49.02 $50.30 $51.62 Paint and Body Shops Per 10 employees $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Dry Cleaner Location/Each Business $156.46 $160.56 $164.76 $169.08 $173.52 $178.06 Laundromat Each Washing Machine $41.12 $42.20 $43.32 $44.44 $45.62 $46.80 Special User [2] Individual Determination NA NA NA NA NA NA Sewer Rate Bimonthly City of Pacific Grove Portion ONLY (effective dates) 35 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 228
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 229
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 230
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 231

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL POLICY
Policy Governing Policy No. Effective Date Page No.

Fees, Charges, and Cost Recovery 400-4 June 15, 2011 1 of 2 I. PURPOSE
The purpose of the policy is to guide the City Council’s establishment of fees for service, fines, and other charges for service, in order to help ensure consistency in fee setting rationale. The policy is intended to provide broad guidance for service areas, without providing detailed guidance for all fee categories
It is the City Council’s intent that the policy may be amended over time to address additional services and evolving economic circumstances.

II. POLICY OF THE CITY
The City establishes fees according to Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 6.02. Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, it is the intent of the City Council to recover a portion or all costs reasonably borne for providing government services to the extent such cost recovery reflects the appropriate balance of general revenue support and fees paid by the individual(s) benefiting from the service.

For enterprise services, in which the City is offering products or services for which the customer has broad market choices, the City may choose to set rates based on current market conditions.

This includes facility rentals, cemetery sales, recreational programs, land use, or similar enterprises. This market-based approach provides the City with the ability to optimize revenue beyond recovering the cost of providing the service. These market-based rates accurately reflect the value received by the customer.

In setting fees, City staff shall prepare fees for City Council consideration, based on cost recovery levels in the subsequent table. The listed percentage or methodology represents the combined cost recovery level for the department. Individual fees within each department may be established at a lower rate to encourage a desired performance; however the overall departmental fees should be within the listed ranges.

All staff assigned to hourly-based services, such as special events, inspections, or related tasks will be charged at the fully burdened hourly rate.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 232
Pacific Grove City Council Policy No. 400-4 Page 2 of 2 Service Cost Recovery Method
Administration, City Clerk, Libraries At least 30% of costs Consideration may need to be given to the recovery percentage, such as limitations on certain fees imposed by the State, election code; or similar entities.

Community Development 80-100% of costs
Public Works 80-100% of costs
Public Safety 30-50% of costs
Hyperbaric Chamber 80-100% of costs
City Facility Rental
Private parties Market
Non-profit organizations Market
Ongoing, frequent, or unique rental
(e.g., weekly classes, or street closure)
Discount from Market
City–sponsored events No charge
Special Events
For-profit sponsor Market; however at least 100% costs
Non-profit sponsor 100% of costs
Events designated “traditional” by City Council No charge Recreation Market; however at least 30% of costs
Cemetery Market; however at least 80% of costs
Golf Determined through concessionaire
Adopted June 2, 2010 (Resolution No. 10-044)
Adopted June 15, 2011 (Resolution No. 11-052)
Adopted September 19, 2018 (Resolution No. 18-033)
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 233
RESOLUTION NO. 23-xxx

ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES

FINDINGS

1. Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 6.02 provides for the establishment of fees and charges for service, and;

2. New fees or deleted fees are identified within the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Master Fee Schedule; and

3. The City of Pacific Grove held a public hearing on April 19, 2023 regarding changes to the Master Fee Schedule, and;

4. Notice of a Public Hearing to be held on April 19, 2023 was published in accordance with PGMC Chapter 6.02 and relevant California Government Code sections, and;

5. The City Council desires to adopt an amended Master Fee Schedule for FY 2023-24, and;

6. The Action proposed by this Resolution does not constitute a “Project” as that term is defined under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guideline section 15378.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:

1. The Council determines that each of the Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Findings as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. After receiving a report of the proposed changes in fees, charges, and costs contained in the City of Pacific Grove FY 2023-24 Master Fee Schedule, and having held a public hearing on the changes, the City Council hereby authorizes the changes including any changes as directed by Council.

3. Per Government Code 66017, approved changes that relate to community development services shall be effective 60 days following final action by the City Council on the resolution. In the case of reductions, the reductions can be implemented on July 1, 2023, on a case-by-case basis, by decision of the City Manager.

4. Approved changes shall be effective July 1, 2023.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 234

5. Every City Department is requested to reproduce, display, and distribute copies of their fee schedules as deemed appropriate. The Master Fee Schedule shall also be posted on the City’s website and available at the Library.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 19th day of April, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
____________________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 235
www.FinanceDTA.com
Newport Beach | San Jose | San Francisco | Riverside | Dallas | Houston | Raleigh | Tampa January 7, 2022
To: Tori Hannah
Daniel Gho
From: Andrea Roess, Managing Director, DTA
Steve Runk, Vice President Engineering, DTA
Subject: Peer Review of City Business Plan
The City of Pacific Grove (“City”) recently constructed a 0.250 MGD reclaimed water treatment plant (“Plant”) for the purpose of replacing potable water deliveries with reclaimed water to three principal customers, Pacific Grove Golf Links, El Carmelo Cemetery and Point Pinos Lighthouse landscaping. A detailed background of the existing physical and financial conditions of the reclaimed water system can be found in Pacific Grove Local Water Project Business Plan dated June 21, 2021 (“Business Plan”). City has asked DTA to conduct a peer review, consisting of: 1) an evaluation of the assumptions, methodology and calculations used to determine the proposed reclaimed water rate described in the Business Plan; and 2) provide a break-even rate analysis.

After review of the City’s Business Plan and rate analysis, DTA has determined that the City’s analysis of revenues and costs, debt service and available fund balances on an annual basis is rational, supportable and is consisted with industry practice. The City’s financial model follows closely with the recommendations of American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual of Water Supply Practices, M1. Furthermore, DTA has determined that to achieve a sustained, breakeven operation, City must impose steep increases in early years to reach a rate level of over $0.03 per gallon with modest increases thereafter.

EVALUATION OF THE BUSINESS PLAN
City looked at proposed revenues and expected expenses through FY28/29 (Year 11) for seven different revenue and cost assumption scenarios. Scenarios I-VII considered various combinations of supplementary water entitlementsales and debt repayment of operating loans. An overview of the findings for the seven scenarios can be found in the “Alternatives” section of the Business Plan. A rate analysis for Scenario VI, titled LWP Proforma, Scenario VI, was provided by City (“rate model”). This rate model was subsequently updated by City to include actual operating costs for FY20/21 as well as adjustments for recent average water demand. This analysis included one-time water rights sales in years 4 through 8.

Also included are proceeds in year 3 from a $600,000 sewer fund loan, with loan repayments plus interest occurring in years 4 and 5. Operating costs were adjusted for inflation in subsequent years. Investment earnings on annual reserve balances included as a revenue source.

Revenues
The rate revenue in any given year is determined by multiplying the expected reclaimed water consumption, in gallons of reclaimed water, by the assumed rate, in dollars per gallon for that year. The expected consumption for each fiscal year is based on historical data and is discussed in the Business Plan. Other revenue shown in Scenario VI included one-time sales of water rights in years 4 through 8, and interest earned on fund balances.

Operating Expenses
Annual expenses such as contract services and utilities are based on actual costs incurred for FY20/21 and adjusted for inflation every year thereafter. In FY20/21 equipment repair and maintenance costs were incorporated into the contract services line item, in the amount of $21,000. Indirect costs are adjusted annually for inflation. Internal service charges are PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 236
City of Pacific Grove
Peer Review January 7, 2022
assumed constant at $4,356 annually. Membranes have a useful life significantly greater than one year and therefore its replacement cost is considered a capital outlay.

Capital Outlay
Capital outlay costs, which include capital expenditures and membrane replacement, are identified in the Business Plan by fiscal year. In this model capital outlays occur in FY22/23 and FY 27/28. The remainder of the 30-year C.I.P. expenses occur in fiscal years beyond this study horizon. Funding for the capital outlay will be on a pay-as-you-go basis from the fund balances and therefore there will be no debt service related to capital outlays. The amount and timing of capital outlays are based on engineering estimates and are as shown in the Business Plan.

Debt Service
The rate model includes annual debt service payments for a State Revolving Loan of $206,448. In FY 21/22 and FY22/23 the project will repay a sewer fund loan of $600,000, with interest, in lump sum payments.

City Rate Increase Recommendations and Fund Balances
In Scenario VI the City proposes rate increases of 20% in Year 4 and Year 5, with 4% and 5% annual increases thereafter.

This will result in positive fund balances in year 4 and each year thereafter, with a positive fund balance of $423,300 in Year 11. A substantial fund balance in year 11 is necessary to assist in providing sufficient funds in later years to pay for the remainder of the C.I.P. program.

BREAK EVEN ANALYSIS
As stated in the Business Plan, the project has been operating at an annual loss. City Staff has asked DTA to provide an independent analysis of rates that assumes that 1) annual revenues will cover annual expenses, and 2) provide fund balances that can pay for capital improvements in the near term as well as establish a reserve fund that will assist in funding future capital improvements beyond the horizon of this analysis. For the purposes of DTA’s analysis, it is assumed that steep increases are imposed in the first two years to remove all annual negative operating balances, with modest increases thereafter. For instance, the attached model shows that rate increases of 35% and 21% in the first two years are required to prevent negative operating fund balances, and annual increases of 3% thereafter will build a fund balance of just under $500,000 in year 7 that will assist in meeting the C.I.P. requirements in later years.

Revenue, Expense and Debt Service Assumptions
DTA’s analysis uses the same annual water consumption and annual expense data shown in the City’s rate model discussed above. Also, the Capital Outlay expenses are repeated from the City’srate model. This analysisincludes annual debt service payments for a State Revolving Loan. The interfund transfer of $76,507 was provided by the General Fund and repayment was not required. In FY20/21 the project received a loan of $600,000 from the sewer fund, as well as $37,000 in temporary funds to assist with cash flow. City staff assumes that this will be repaid through other sources also, rather than operating revenues shown herein. This analysis also assumes that any water rights sales that occur during this study period are not made a part of this analysis.

Findings
Based on the above assumptions, DTA finds that rate increases of 35% in Year 4, 21% in year 5 and 3% per year in Years 6 through 11 are necessary to achieve positive fund balances from this point forward, while accumulating a fund balance of just under $500,000 by year 11, to be used to fund capital improvements in later years. Steep increases in Years 4 and 5 are necessary to increase the rate levels from 0.017 per gallon to around $0.03 per gallon by Year 8. A rate level of around $0.03 per gallon with modest annual increases thereafter will enable City to not only achieve a break-even operation but allow fund balances to accumulate so that by year 11 these balances can carry forward to help fund future C.I.P. projects.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 237
City of Pacific Grove
Peer Review January 7, 2022
If the City choses to increase rates at a slower pace, the enterprise will continue to experience annual budget shortfalls, which will need to be offset by other sources.

BREAK EVEN ANALYSIS MODEL
Key Assumptions:

No water rights sales revenue Included in this model
Debt repayment for sewer fund loan made from other sources Interfund transfer repayment made from other sources
Cost per
gallon
Cost per
gallon
Cost per
gallon
Cost per
gallon
Cost per
gallon
Cost per
gallon
Cost per
gallon
Cost per
gallon
Cost per
gallon
Cost per
gallon
$ 0.01721 0.0232 0.0281 0.0290 0.0298 0.0307 0.0316 0.0326 0.0336 Actual Actual 35.0% 21.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 Beginning Fund Balance (326,361) (527,571) 311 21,003 77,924 250,740 436,308 635,624 849,180 237,954 Operating Revenues
Reclaimed Water 524,041 597,833 740,641 896,176 923,061 950,753 979,275 1,008,654 1,038,913 1,070,081 Interest Earned 421 - 107 495 1,643 3,435 5,360 7,424 5,436 Non Opereating Revenues
One Time Entitlement Sales
Interfund Transfers 76,507
Operating Loan Proceeds - 637,000 - - - - - - - -
Subtotal - Revenues 600,969 1,234,833 740,641 896,282 923,556 952,396 982,711 1,014,013 1,046,337 1,075,516 Expenses
Contract Services 356,606 335,610 345,678 356,049 366,730 377,732 389,064 400,736 412,758 425,141 Legal Services - - - - - - - - - -
Postage - - - - - - - - - -
Telephone - - - - - - - - - -
Utilities 206,168 138,317 142,467 146,741 151,143 155,677 160,347 165,158 170,112 175,216 Internal Service Charges 4,357 5,000 4,356 4,356 4,356 4,356 4,356 4,356 4,356 4,356 Indirect Costs 28,600 20,000 21,000 21,525 22,063 22,615 23,180 23,760 24,354 24,962 Equipment Repair - 1,576 - - - - - - - -
Misc. Expense - - - - - - - - - -
subtotal - Expenses 595,731 500,503 513,501 528,670 544,292 560,380 576,947 594,009 611,580 629,675 Net operating difference 5,238 734,330 227,140 367,612 379,264 392,016 405,763 420,004 434,757 445,841 Non-Operating:

Capital Outlay (104,243) (839,535)
Debt
Debt Service - State Loan (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) Repayment of Interfund Transfer - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - Sewer Loan -
sub total - Debt (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) (206,448) Net Revenue/Deficit (201,210) 527,882 20,692 56,921 172,816 185,568 199,315 213,556 (611,226) 239,393 Ending Fund Balance (527,571) 311 21,003 77,924 250,740 436,308 635,624 849,180 237,954 477,347 DTA Break Even Analysis
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 238
Agenda No. 11 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager MEETING DATE: April 19, 2023
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2022/23 Mid-Year Budget Modifications and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;

2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;

3. Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget; and

4. Direct that publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney.

DISCUSSION
The City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget on June 15, 2022. Throughout the year, the City may make amendments to the budget to reflect updates to revenues and expenditures.

The City Council’s approval is needed to amend the budget.

The attached budget amendment ordinance reflects contracts that were approved by the City Council in March, items that were considered at the April 12 Council Meeting, revised estimates for select capital projects, and the addition of a three-quarter time Recreation Coordinator position. While an overview of the items are listed below, the Public Works and Community Development staff will be present at the Council Meeting for any follow-up questions relating to these adjustments.

General Fund - Increased Expenditures of $164,401
Housing Element Contract
On March 22, 2023, Council approved a contract with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update. The total amount of the agreement was $227,918, with $100,000 available in the approved Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget. The attached budget amendment ordinance includes the additional $127,918 that is needed to support the contract.

Harris and Associates Staffing Contract
On April 5, 2023, staff brought forward an item to increase the Harris and Associates contract for PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 239
contract planner services. This item was continued to April 12, 2023. The amount of the increase attributed to Fiscal Year 2022/23 was $58,145. This contract was anticipated to be funded by allocating $34,662 in Community Development Department salary savings; and an appropriation of $23,483 from the General Fund balance. The additional $23,483 to support this contract has been included in the budget amendment ordinance.

Chautauqua Hall Preservation Plan, CIP 23-17
This project was originally included in the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Proposed Budget in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Fund. As part of the mid-year budget process, the current year project allocation was reduced to zero to align with projected expenses, and a revised commencement date in Fiscal Year 2023/24. A competitive quote was received to perform the project; however it was above the original budget allocation. This project is essential to the long-term planning and preservation of Chautauqua Hall, as well as the pursuit of grant funding for future improvements. To assist in moving forward with this project, staff is requesting the reinstatement of $25,000 in ARPA funds, as well as a $13,000 transfer from the General Fund to the CIP Fund to support the proposed $38,000 Plan costs.

Recreation Coordinator Position
The Recreation Department is requesting the addition of a three-quarter time Recreation Coordinator to provide Youth Center Services. This position will provide the necessary oversight on the weekends that will allow for the opening of the Youth Center on Saturday and Sunday throughout the summer. This position will also provide oversight for the afterschool Youth Center programming, which is anticipated to commence for 2-4 days per week starting in May of 2023, and continue for the remainder of the school year. There are sufficient funds in the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget to support this position. The annual costs for this position are anticipated to be approximately $58,400. This position request is consistent with the draft City Council goals.

Local Streets and Roads, Measure X - Increased Expenditures of $125,155 Fiscal Year 21/22 Crack and Slurry Seal Project, CIP 22-02 This project concluded in August 2022. During the mid-year budget process, the remaining project balance of $41,174 was adjusted to zero to reflect the project completion. The contractor contacted the City and indicated a final retention invoice was still pending. The proposed amendment reinstates $12,021 of the original project allocation to provide for payment of the final invoice.

Fiscal Year 21/22 Street Rehabilitation Project, CIP 22-01 This project was originally allocated between multiple funds. The amount attributed to the Sewer Fund's share of the project were less than anticipated; however the allocation to other funds was insufficient to support costs that were ineligible for sewer funding. While the overall project is in alignment with the approved budget, an amendment needs to be made to apply costs to the appropriate funding source. Staff is requesting an additional appropriation of $113,134 from the Local Streets and Roads Fund (Measure X) to support these costs.

CIP Fund - Increased Revenues and Expenditures of $13,000 Chautauqua Hall Preservation Plan, CIP 23-17
The budget ordinance includes a transfer-in from the General Fund of $13,000, along with the corresponding expenditures to support the aforementioned Chautauqua Hall Preservation Plan.

Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA)/SB1 Fund - Increased Expenditures of $65,000
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 240
Fiscal Year 22/23 Crack and Slurry Seal Project, CIP 23-02 Following a competitive bid process, it was determined that an additional $65,000 was needed to support the crack and slurry seal of 630,000 SF of roadway, which was identified for treatment in the City's Pavement Management Program. Crack and slurry sealing is a vital maintenance activity that helps preserve the City's roads against rapid deterioration and potholes due to inclement weather. This is a cost-effective maintenance treatment that helps ensure roads remain in good condition for years to come.

Sewer Fund - Increased Expenditures of $190,000
Fiscal Year 22/23 Road Rehabilitation Project, CIP 23-01 During the engineering phase of this project, underground infrastructure was CCTV videoed to assess existing conditions. It was anticipated, based on the age of lines and construction records, that segments of the sewer infrastructure would need to be replaced. As such, the project budget included the funds to address the anticipated need. While videoing, staff discovered the sewer line on 16th Street from Pine to Junipero Ave. was in a deteriorated state and in need of replacement. Although it was outside of the bounds of the original segment of 16th Street, that needed to be addressed, due to the critical nature of sewer infrastructure, improvements to 16th Street between Spruce and Junipero Ave. were engineered.

Based on the engineer's estimate, there is sufficient funding in the approved budget to support the sewer improvements; however an additional appropriation is needed to support the pavement rehabilitation that is required following the sewer improvements. As such, the street improvements on 16th Street (from Spruce to Junipero) were included as a bid additive (Bid Additive 2). The sewer elements were included in the base bid and this item is scheduled to be considered by the City Council at the April 12 Meeting. A separate contract will be brought forth for Bid Additive 2, if this budget amendment is approved.

ARPA Fund - Reinstatement of expenditures in the amount of $25,000 Chautauqua Hall Preservation Plan, CIP 23-17
The budget ordinance reinstates the original $25,000 that was appropriated for this project.

An additional proposed $13,000 to support this Plan has been included in a transfer from the General Fund to the CIP Fund.

OPTIONS

1. Make no adjustments

2. Provide alternate direction to staff
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The modifications to the General Fund are anticipated to result in a drawdown of unassigned fund balance in the amount of $164,401. This is projected to result in an estimated ending unassigned General Fund balance of approximately $11.1 million. This places the estimated ending fund balance $816,000 above the City's updated reserve threshold of $10.3 million.

The net change to all other funds are provided within the ordinance.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 241
Attachments
Budget Amendment Ordinance
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 242
ORDINANCE NO. xx-xxx

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

AMENDING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022-23
FACTS

1. The City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget on June 15, 2022.

2. It is customary to amend the budget to adjust revenues and expenditures to reflect updated information since the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget.

3. The City Manager is recommending amendments to the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget to reflect the City Council goals for the fiscal year budget.

4. The Council has determined it is appropriate to amend the approved budget for FY 2022-23.

5. Pursuant to Charter Article 15, an amendment of the budget must be approved by ordinance.

6. A summary of the Ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, was published on ___________.

7. In the enactment of this ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.

8. Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing facts are adopted as findings of the City Council as set forth fully within the body of this ordinance.

SECTION 2. The revenue budget for the following funds is amended, as stated herein. Which by reference are incorporated as set forth in its entirety.

Fund Increase/(decrease)
63 - CIP Fund 13,000
Budget Adjustment Summary
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 243
SECTION 3. The expenditure budget for the following funds is amended, as stated herein. Which by reference are incorporated as set forth in its entirety.

SECTION 4. The Fiscal Year 2022/23 estimated fund balances based on this adjustment, are referenced herein:
(1) The estimated ending “available” fund balance for Sewer Fund is $6,245,156.

SECTION 5. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption hereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 3 rd
day of May, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
Fund Increase/(decrease)
01 - General Fund 164,401
17 - Local Streets and Roads 125,155
47 - Road Maintenance and Rehab. (RMRA/SB1) 65,000
63 - CIP Fund 13,000
76 - Sewer 190,000
84 - American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) 25,000
Budget Adjustment Summary
Fund
Beginning Fund
Balance Est. Revenue Est. Expense
Est. Ending
Fund Balance
01 - General Fund 12,010,279 31,253,000 32,163,307 11,099,972 17 - Local Streets and Roads 955,564 774,992 1,681,633 48,923 47 - Road Maintenance and Rehab. (RMRA/SB1) 476,538 325,978 669,806 132,710 63 - CIP Fund (21,195) 2,888,233 1,870,393 996,645
76 - Sewer (1)
21,575,089 4,316,666 4,351,871 21,539,884
84 - American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) 293,369 1,849,559 2,030,199 112,729 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 244
ATTEST:
_________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 245
Agenda No. 11 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: April 19, 2023
SUBJECT: Tree Appeal: 306 Crocker
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Hold a de novo public hearing for tree removal permit application #23-011.

Uphold the decision of the City Arborist denying the removal of three (3) Monterey Cypress trees located at 306 Crocker Avenue

2. DISCUSSION
On January 13, 2023, Tree Application 23-011 was submitted, by Christina Monson (Property Owner), for the removal of three (3) Monterey Cypress trees located at 306 Crocker Avenue (attachment 1).

Following a thorough review of the submitted documents, Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Title 12, Trees and the Urban Forest, and in- field observations, the request for removal of the trees was denied. The City does not have justification to allow the removals as the application packet failed to adequately present findings for removal as defined in the Municipal Code.

A request for removal of the three (3) Cypress trees was also made in 2018, Tree Permit Application 18-0194. This request for removal was also denied for the same reasons – failure to provide evidence or findings for removal per the municipal code.

Below is a full chronology of the history of the trees. This information details the information request, submitted and reviewed and provides a timeline of events.

CHRONOLOGY
June 7, 2018: Tree Application 18-0194 was submitted, by the property owner Christina Monson, requesting removal of the three (3) cypress trees. Removal was denied pending an Arborist report.

August 30, 2018: City received an arborist report from Joseph E. Bileci, dated August 29, 2018 (attachment 2). The arborist report stated the trees are the wrong trees in the wrong place, they are a nuisance, as they interfere with each other’s growth, and they pose a hazard to the structure and power lines.

October 10, 2018: The City denied Tree Permit Application 18-0194 because the applicants PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 246
October 10, 2018: The City denied Tree Permit Application 18-0194 because the applicants submission packet did not demonstrate enough evidence or findings that condemn the trees or give reason to consider the trees to be high risk. City staff recommended continue maintenance and trimming.

January 12, 2023: Tree Application 23-011 was submitted, requesting removal of the three (3) Cypress trees. The application submission included:

An Arborist Report, dated January 5, 2023 (attachment 3), and A letter from a consulting arborist supporting the original 2018 report, dated January 11, 2023 (attachment 4).

January 5, 2023 Report:

This report specified that the determinations in the report were based solely on a visual inspection; no additional inspections were performed, including resistograph testing, root excavation or aerial inspections. The 2018 arborist report mentioned cavities, but the current report states, from a limited visual assessment from the ground, the mentioned cavities could not be seen. The report provides 3 options:

1. Removal

2. Continued maintenance and monitoring, or

3. Advanced testing to really determine the structure of the trees January 11, 2023 Letter:

This letter was drafted in support of the 2018 Arborist Report. This letter rates the trees. However, ratings are only based on visual observations as the report does not specify any additional testing was performed.

January 13, 2023: The City received a letter from BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP supplementing application Tree Permit Application 23-011, siting immediate removal was warranted per PGMC § 12.60.060 (attachment 5).

January 22, 2023: The City Arborist developed a report with findings (attachment 6). The report stated:

The three (3) cypress trees have withstood numerous storms, including two recent atmospheric rivers in early 2023. This resulted in numerous trees in Pacific Grove to fail, but subject trees at 306 Crocker remained unchanged, including no branch failure. This is attributed to the proper care and maintenance of the subject trees over the years.

The three subject trees appear healthy and have a 50% crown to trunk ratio with foliage with average color, density and needle length.

The trees act as one network of supporting roots creating one root plate.

The trunks are upright and well tapered.

There is no uplift, mounding or fracturing to the soil.

The property has proper drainage as the soil is not saturated.

A wound is present in one tree, tree #40 as identifed in the January 5, 2023 letter.

Compartmentalization is noted with no indications of advanced decay such as unusual swelling, fractured bark or conks.

January 31, 2023: Appeal form (attachment 7) and a letter from BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP (attachment 11), supplementing the appeal form, was received.

March 21, 2023: Appeal was heard before the BNRC, for permit # 23-011. At the time of the hearing, PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 247
March 21, 2023: Appeal was heard before the BNRC, for permit # 23-011. At the time of the hearing, the Board consisted of 6 members due to a vacancy. One member was absent leaving 5 voting members present. In order to pass a motion, 4 members would need to have an affirmative vote, which did not occur after numerous motions. The Chair specified that the item would need to go before the City Council for a final decision.

April 7, 2023: Tree permit Appeal letter received for BRISCOE INVESTER & BAZELL LLP.

CITY’S ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION
The City has reviewed all documents pertaining to Tree Permit Application 23-011. After careful consideration of the written reports, field observations, and review of the City’s Tree Ordinance, Chapter 12, Trees and the Urban Forest, the City has concluded that findings for the removal have not been adequately presented or defined per the Municipal Code, and the City does not have justification to allow the removal. The City Arborist report with findings (attachment 6) provides additional details.

The appellant sites immediate removal is justified per code section PGMC § 12.60.060.

12.06.060 Dead Trees and High-Risk Trees: All permit applications for dead Trees and High-Risk Trees with a potential failure rating of nine or above shall be Removed in a timely manner and processed within 10 days and requirements for a Tree Report, public noticing, etc. shall be adjusted accordingly.

The City reviewed section PGMC sections 12.60.060 and 12.40.020. The City does not deem the trees as high risk and disagrees with the evaluation provided by the contracted arborists. Per section

12.40.020, provided below, actions have been, and should continue to be, implemented to reduce the risk while imposing the least impact such as the continued maintenance and monitoring of the trees.

Following the denial of the removal request in 2018, remediation actions have occurred, retaining the trees, allowing for the least impact on the trees while mitigating risk. The mitigation performed on the trees over the last 5 years has proven to be a successful tactic, exemplified by the trees resiliency in recent storms.

PGMC § 12.40.020, Actions to be undertaken for dead Trees and Trees assessed as High-Risk, of the City Code: When a Protected Tree is assessed as high-risk, the actions taken shall be those that Remove the risk while imposing the least impact on the Tree. Such actions may involve Removing a critical limb, drastically reducing the Tree’s overall height, or Removing the Tree. If the situation is an Emergency, such that the Tree would be given a potential failure rating of 12, extreme, immediate action is necessary, including, for example, cordoning off the area, to ameliorate the risk, until the appropriate work can be completed. No notice shall be required for Emergency Tree Removal.

Moreover, and as specified in the City’s findings, the trees appear to be in good health, with a good crown to trunk ratio, good color, the trunks are upright and well tapered, and the surrounding soil exhibits no issues indicating root failure or uplift.

These trees meet the City Council’s general findings regarding the relationship between health, safety, and general welfare, and the selection, planting and conservation, protection, and maintenance of trees, codified in PGMC § 12.10.020 Findings. The trees have been well maintained, and as such, they provide protection from climate extremes, improve human health, provide stormwater benefits, provide habitat for wildlife, and help the City meet canopy coverage goals.

CONCLUSION
The applicant has not demonstrated sufficient findings to warrant the removal of the three (3) Cypress Trees in accordance with the Municipal Code. Therefore, the City recommends retention and proper PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 248
maintenance of the trees.

If the Council does not agree with the findings and recommendation from City Staff then a level III assessment consisting of resistance testing shall be done to determine the internal integrity of the trees.

This can be achieved with Tomography or Resistograph testing. To date, only visual inspections have occurred and, as previously stated, do not provide sufficient cause for removal.

The City requests that the City Council uphold the decision of the City Arborist and deny the removal of the three (3) Monterey Cypress located at 306 Crocker Avenue as noted on application #23-011.

OPTIONS
Approve the appeal and allow the trees in question to be removed. This action is not recommended as sufficient findings have not been provided to justify removal per the City Code, as noted above.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact by receiving this report.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Application
2018 report
Gates report
Thompson report
BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP Letter
City Arborist report
Appeal form
Picture of trees
Notification Letter
2018 city denial letter
BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP Letter 1/31
April 7. 2023 Letter
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 249
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 250
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 251
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 252
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 253
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 254
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 255
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 256
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 257
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 258
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 259
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 260
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 261
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 262
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 263
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 264
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 265
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 266
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 267
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 268
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 269
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 270
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 271
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 272
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 273
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 274
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 275
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 276
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 277
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 278
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 279
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 280
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 281
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 282
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 283
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 284
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 285
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 286
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 287
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 288
1 THOMPSON

WILDLAND MANAGEMENT
Environmental Management & Conservation Services
International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist # WE-7468A Department of Pesticide Regulation Qualified Applicator Lic. #QL50949 B Arborist & Environmental Assessments, Protection, Restoration, Monitoring & Reporting Wildland Fire Property Protection, Fuel Reduction & Vegetation Management Invasive Weed Control, and Habitat Restoration & Management Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Resource Ecologist
January 11, 2023
Monson Residence
306 Crocker Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA. 93950
Subject: Cypress tree assessment letter for 306 Crocker Avenue The purpose of this letter is to state my support for the findings and recommendations of Mr. Joseph Bileci's arborist report that was prepared in August 2018, which is the removal of 3 mature Monterey Cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) trees located on the property at 306 Crocker Avenue in Pacific Grove. These 3 trees of concern are identified by tag#s 38-40 and are located in a row in the front yard of the property adjacent to Crocker Avenue and utility powerlines (see attached photos, Figures 1-5). A fourth cypress tree located at the end of the row (identified by tag#41) is not a hazard concern and therefore is not proposed for removal.

These 3 trees scored a hazard rating ranging from 10 to 11 and should be removed to abate hazard concerns. Trees of this size, form and proximity to one another are not well suited to a relatively small front yard area such as this, especially as the subject trees continue to age and increase in size and stature.

The ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form was used to determine a hazard rating score for the 3 subject cypress trees. Per the assessment, the 32 inch DBH (diameter at breast height) cypress identified as Tree#38 scored a hazard rating of 11 on the ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form; the 21 inch DBH cypress identified as Tree#39 scored a hazard rating of 10; and the 26 inch DBH cypress identified as Tree#40 also scored a hazard rating of 10, primarily due to their size and proximity to a permanently occupied home, utility powerlines and public roadway.

It should also be emphasized that the property owners are very concerned that these trees pose a hazard to their property and a threat to their safety and well-being. For these reasons, the 3 Monterey Cypress trees of concern should be removed followed by the PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 289
2 planting of 3 City approved replacement trees that are better suited to the property and more appropriate to the site.

Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,
Rob Thompson 1-11-23
ISA Certified Arborist # WE-7468A Date
Resource Ecologist
Thompson Wildland Management (TWM)
57 Via Del Rey
Monterey, CA. 93940
Office (831) 372-3796; Cell (831) 277-1419
Email: [email protected] ; Website: www.wildlandmanagement.com PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 290
3 Figure 1. The 3 Monterey Cypress trees of concern are identified as Tree#s 38-40 from right to left. The tree on the far left (Tree#41) is not proposed for removal at this time.

Figure 2. The canopies of Tree#s 38-40 from right to left.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 291
4 Figure 3. Several old pruning wounds along stem of Tree#38 are entry points for biotic disorders, such as decay.

Figure 4. Seam along lower stem of Tree#40 is entry point for potential decay.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 292
5 Figure 5. Balance and symmetry of cypress trees of concern has been adversely affected by utility powerline pruning operations.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 293
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 294
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 295
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 296
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 297
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 298
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 299
ATTACHMENT 2
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 300

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
235 MONTGOMERY STREET,
SUITE 935
SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 402-2700
Tony Francois
(415) 402-2707
[email protected]
January 13, 2023
By Email and Upload to Pacific Grove Tree Removal Permit Portal Mr. Albert Weisfuss, City Arborist
City of Pacific Grove
City Hall, Forestry Division
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Flood
Pacific Grove CA 93950
[email protected]
Subject: Tree Removal Permit, 306 Crocker Avenue, Pacific Grove Dear Mr. Weisfuss:

I am writing to supplement the application for tree removal permit submitted on this date through the City’s online tree permit portal, on behalf of Tim Calvert and Christina Monson, homeowners at 306 Crocker Avenue in Pacific Grove. The application requests a permit to remove three trees on their property under Pacific Grove City Code § 12.60.060 as High-Risk Trees.

The two arborist reports accompanying the application, from Mr. Thompson and from Ms. Gates, rate the three trees as 11/10/10 and 10/10/10, respectively, out of 12 on the applicable hazard scale, and under section 12.60.060 the City is required to issue a permit for their removal immediately as a ministerial duty, so that they can be removed within 10 days.

If the permit is not issued promptly, the homeowners will pursue all legal means to ensure its issuance.

This may seem an abrupt warning, but the homeowners’ prior experience in 2018 in being denied a removal permit for these trees appears to warrant it. At that time the homeowners did not have counsel, were not aware that the City Code required approval of a permit to remove the three trees (which were rated 9, 9, and 9 then instead of 11/10, 10, and 10 by now), and were misinformed by City staff about their appeal rights. They have had to incur the additional expense of periodic pruning of the trees, commissioning additional arborist reports, and retaining an attorney to ensure that they can now receive the permit that they were wrongly denied four years ago. During that time, they have endured significant stress because of the danger that the three trees pose to them, their neighbors, and their property. The recently obtained arborist PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 301

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Mr. Albert Weisfuss
January 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

reports only confirm that the situation is not stable but getting more dangerous: all three of the trees are a greater hazard now than they were four years ago.

The current weather conditions and resulting harms from failed trees illustrate the importance of removing dangerous trees before they fall and cause power outages, damage property, and injure or kill someone.

I am attaching a series of photographs taken by Christina Monson of trees down in the area, many of them during the recent and ongoing winter storms and within her neighborhood.

Almost all of them are since the City denied a removal permit for the three trees in 2018. The two photos taken by the previous homeowners in 2000 show that this residence has already experienced damage from a smaller cypress tree, showing that the current concerns are valid.

The three trees that now need to be removed are much larger and heavier than the one that fell in 2000 and pose a far greater threat.

I am also attaching copies of recent local news articles with links that demonstrate that tree failure is happening frequently in the area and has killed two people and damaged a lot of property. Finally, I note that current weather forecast calls for continued rain through the coming week, with at least two days of higher winds (20+ mph).

The three trees pose an ongoing threat of failure that would significantly damage or destroy the home and injure or kill the homeowners and anyone else in the vicinity. They are also too close to the power lines, posing an ongoing threat of power outage. They were not properly placed in the first instance by a prior owner, see City of Pacific Grove January 11, 2022 Landscape Trees for Pacific Grove, at page 2 (avoid overhead obstacles), and their placement also conflicts with PG&E’s guidance for trees near power lines, see https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/yard-safety/powerlines-and-trees/right-tree-right-place/righttree-right-place.page. This original placement error is also noted in Ms. Gates’ report. These considerations were likely not given adequate attention when the prior owner planted the trees many years ago, but the increasing frequency of fires and power outages has raised the importance of an holistic approach to tree placement and, where appropriate as in this case, removal of dangerous trees that were poorly placed.

Our understanding of the City’s canopy coverage and tree replacement requirements is that no replacement planting is required. The available landscape area at 306 Crocker Avenue is less than 2,000 square feet, for which 0-1 upper canopy tree and 1-2 lower canopy trees would be PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 302

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Mr. Albert Weisfuss
January 13, 2023

Page 3 ends

required. One cypress tree will remain on the lot as an upper canopy tree, and the lot has three oak trees serving as lower canopy trees. See Pacific Grove City Code, § 12.20.080(a).

Please notify me at your earliest opportunity of the approval of the permit, so that the homeowners can make prompt arrangements for the removal of the trees. I can be reached at [email protected]. The application is complete in our understanding, but if you need any further information please request it promptly so that we may respond without delaying issuance of the removal permit.

Sincerely,

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Tony Francois
Partner
TF:ajw
cc: Daniel Gho, Pacific Grove Public Works Director [email protected] Brian Pierik, Pacific Grove City Attorney [email protected] PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 303
ATTACHMENT 1
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 304
Christie Monson, 306 Crocker Ave., Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Cypress Root AND Trunk failure, tree landing on the back of our house, 306 Crocker Ave., (when owned by previous owners) in 2000.

Tree failure on walking path near 240 Crocker Ave., PG, 12-11-22 (9 houses down the street from us)
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 305
Cypress Limb on wires near 240 Crocker Ave. 12-11-22
Cypress Trunk Failure, seen from walking trail parallel to Crocker Ave., ½ block directly uphill from our house. PG, 10-30-22
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 306
Monterey pine crash, Alder Street, PG, causing 2-day power outage. 1-2-23 Pine tree failure, 9th & Gibson, PG, 1-3-23
Oak tree failure, Gibson & 9th St., PG, 1-2-23
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 307
Trunk failure at Asilomar, PG 1-17-19
Same trunk failure at Asilomar, PG, 1-17-19
Root failure at Weldon Grove Place, PG, 2-4-19
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 308
Country Club Gate guardhouse, PG, 2-14-19
Root failure, Sinex Ave., PG 2-14-19
Cypress failure on walking trail next to Best Western. PG, 2-15-19 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 309
A different cypress failure, landing on roof of Best Western, PG, 2-15-19 Failed tree at 375 Asilomar Ave., PG, right behind our house (turquoise house) 2-23-19 Close up of failed tree at 375 Asilomar Ave., PG, right behind our house (turquoise house) 2-23-19
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 310
ATTACHMENT 2
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 311
72-year-old man killed by tree during Santa Cruz storm
By Estevan Lopez
KSBW action news, December 31, 2022
https://www.ksbw.com/article/72-year-old-man-killed-by-tree-duringsanta-cruz-storn/42373940 fallen tree responsible for the death of a Santa Cruz man.

Source of photo: Santa Cruz Police
SANTA CRUZ, Calif. —
A 72-year-old man was found dead under a 120-foot Cypress tree that had experienced "failure" at Lighthouse Field State Beach.

According to California State Parks, these types of failures are unpredictable and unfortunately, cannot be prevented. As a result of the incident, the park will be closed until further notice.
"Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family and loved ones of the victim," state parks wrote in a press release. "We ask that the public respect their privacy during this difficult time."
It is not clear at this time what caused the failure of the Cypress tree or how the victim became trapped beneath it. The incident is currently under investigation.
---
2-Year-Old Boy Killed After Redwood Tree Falls on Home During Powerful Storm in California
Jason Duaine Hahn
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 312
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/2-old-boy-killed-redwood202313126.html Thu, January 5, 2023 at 12:23 PM PST·
Hector Amezcua/The Sacramento Bee via ZUMA Press Wire
A 2-year-old boy was killed in California on Wednesday night when a soaking wet redwood tree toppled over onto his family's mobile home, according to local reports.

The boy's death comes amid a massive storm that has brought rains and floods to much of the state over the last week.
"One of our major incidents we've had involved a redwood tree falling on a house … and we had a fatality up there of a minor -- infant, actually," Occidental Volunteer Fire Department Chief Ron Lunardi said, according to ABC News.

According to The Los Angeles Times, when officers responded to a report about a fallen tree, Sgt. Juan Valencia of the Sonoma County Sherriff's Office said they found that "the tree landed on a 2-year-old boy that was sitting in the living room on a couch."
Lunardi told ABC News that when authorities arrived, a "frantic father came out" holding the child.
"He was kind of covered in debris, and he said my child is not breathing," he told the outlet. "We are in a rural location out here, so my first thought was to get him into my truck and let's get him out to the main road because he is on a long dirt driveway."
"I got the father into the truck. As I was backing up down the driveway in reverse, I was giving him instructions to breathe his child for him, and as we did, we got back out to the main road, where I met the rescue squad, and they immediately grabbed the child from the father and started CPR and waited for the paramedics to get there," he added.

Despite their efforts, the boy did not survive his injuries.

The boy's parents were uninjured, FOX affiliate KTTV reported.

The Press Democrat reported that fallen trees made it difficult for firefighters to reach the home. Rescuers also couldn't use helicopters due to the weather, Lunardi said per CBS News.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 313
----
Tree Falls on a Home in Pebble Beach
https://www.ksbw.com/article/tree-falls-on-a-home-in-pebblebeach/42422019 note at approx. 1:10 on the video:
“Strong winds across the coast brought many trees down, but Juan Fernandez Valdez, an arborist and owner of Peninsula Tree Service, said the wind might not be the only reason the tree came down on Bravo's house.

In front of the fallen tree's roots, Valdez explained a possible reason the tree came down could have been that the roots were too shallow for the size of the tree.
"The way I see it, one of the possible reasons is, it must have had a lot of heavy top and the root system in this kind of trees. They spread, they don't go deep enough. So when the rain comes saturated, the ground and the trees absorb a lot of water because they've been starving for many years and that's what happens, " Valdez said.”
A tree that fell on Camino del Monte [in Carmel] damaged a car that was traveling on the road.

The Carmel Pine Cone Volume 108 No. 52 www.carmelpinecone.com December 30, 2022-January 5, 2023
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 314
The Carmel Pine Cone Volume 109 No. 1 www.carmelpinecone.com January 6-12, 2023

Page 1 ends

A tree crashed through the roof of a home on Torres in Carmel Wedneday evening, destroying a bedroom and a garage.

Storm wreaks havoc as trees crash into houses, power lines By MARY SCHLEY
CAROL TOTH and her family were just getting ready for dinner Wednesday around 6 p.m. when they heard a loud bang and ran outside to investigate.

A towering Monterey pine had fallen onto their Torres Street house and
sent a big limb through the ceiling directly over a bed in one of the rooms.

Had her daughter and grandchildren been in that back room, Toth speculated, “they would have been dead.”
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 315
While the bedroom suffered major damage, the garage took the brunt of the blow and was quickly condemned by a city building official as unsafe. “Our garage is cut in half,” she said.
‘A big old tree’
The pine had been standing in the backyard of a house on Santa Fe a block above hers that sold about six months ago, according to Toth, who said the pine was trimmed a year ago in advance of the sale but should have been taken down altogether.
“It’s a big old tree,” she said. “That tree has been there forever, and it should have been cut down a long time ago.”
Toth said she and her family have owned their home on Torres near Third since 1985 and had a tree fall across its roof about 15 years ago. The damage was more dramatic in appearance because it karate-chopped the roof, but less extensive because the tree broke through a false See CRASHED page 12A

Page 12 ends

From page 1A
roof that slowed it before it could compromise the structural integrity of the house, she said. This time, the garage and all its contents are thrashed. “Everything’s ruined,” she said. “We had 13 surf boards in there, and bikes, and now we can’t even get in because it’s just crunched. Our sump pump is gone, so if it rains, we’re going to flood.”
While most of the house is OK, their daughter, son-in-law and two children will have to find somewhere else to live for a while, since their part of the house is damaged, too.

Tope’s Tree Service was there removing the tree debris Thursday morning, so the lengthy repair process, including getting permits from the city to rebuild, can soon begin. Toth isn’t sure who’s responsible for what, since the pine was a privately owned tree in the neighbors’ backyard. “They’re pretty much in shock,” she said of the new homeowners. “And there’s a tree over their house that looks like it’s going to fall, too, so now they’re super paranoid.”
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 316
In general, Toth said she believes the city’s prolific old Monterey pines need to be cut down before they cause any more damage or kill someone. “These trees are old and their root systems are shallow,” she said. “They’re dangerous. They could have taken my daughter and my son-in-law or the children.”
Lots of debris, damage The rain and high winds that swept through Wednesday evening, following downpours on New Year’s Eve and earlier in December, caused numerous trees to topple, some losing their grip in the saturated soil. Emergency crews, tree services, were scrambling from one call to the next Wednesday as reports came in of trees falling on power lines, across roads and onto structures, with intermittent power outages— including one that struck downtown for a few hours — plaguing residents and businesses. Several streets were closed while crews worked to remove fallen or dangerously leaning trees. City administrator Chip Rerig said more than 30 trees fell in the city during the most recent storm. Not far away on Holman Highway, a driver in the parking lot at the Carmel Hills Care Center reported that three trees had fallen on cars in the parking lot, including
hers, which she was driving at the time.

The chaos followed the torrential downpour downpour and winds on New Year’s Eve, which saw the first round of storm damage in town. The top of a power pole at Carpenter and Second snapped off at around 5:15 a.m., plunging half the city into darkness, and PG&E crews used three cherry-pickers and other resources to replace the pole, getting the power restored around 3:30 p.m.

Just down the road at Torres and Second, a huge pine had fallen across the road and onto power lines. The day’s storm and winds saw more large trees come down, including a cypress that dropped limbs on an occupied car on Scenic Road, a large oak that blocked a car in its driveway on Junipero, and a tree that fell at the busy intersection of Carpenter and Ocean. A large pine crashed onto a home on Vizcaino southwest of Mountain View, too, while others took out cable and electricity.

KSBW tv news
www.ksbw.com/article/hundreds-of-residents-in-pacific-groveleft-without-power-for-more-than-24-hours/42376381 PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 317
When tree fell on Alder St. pulling down power lines, one resident says, “PG means ‘power gone.’” [locals call Pacific Grove “PG,” not to be confused with “PG&E.”]
PG&E kept homes in dark for two days

KELLY NIX
The Carmel Pine Cone Volume 109 No. 1 www.carmelpinecone.com January 6-12, 2023
HUNDREDS OF Pacific Grove residents who were without electricity for more than two days starting on New Year’s Eve had their power restored Monday night, hours before PG&E apologized for its “failure” to keep residents adequately informed about the outage.

On Dec. 31 at about 3 p.m., a large pine tree fell across Alder Street between Short Street and Laurel Avenue. The tree took out PG&E power lines on both sides of Alder. The outage first knocked out power to hundreds of customers in the beach tract area before causing an outage to about 170 customers in the neighborhood around Alder Street several hours later. The outage affected as many as 600 customers, according to PG&E’s map, and was one of many power failures on the Peninsula in the wake of Saturday’s storm.

Nevertheless, people who live near Alder Street and in the beach tract were upset with what they saw as PG&E’s slow response to the downed tree. It wasn’t until about 10 a.m. on Jan. 2 that a tree company started to clear the damage. And it was about 7 p.m. when the first batch of customers had their power restored.

Door to door
PG&E spokeswoman Megan McFarland told The Pine Cone that a company crew was finished with its safety inspection “late” Sunday, Jan. 1. But the tree removal process didn’t start until Monday morning. A worker with See OUTAGE page 21A
OUTAGE
From page 1A
the PG&E-contracted Davey Tree service stood in the bucket of a tree crane and used a chainsaw to cut the large pine piece by piece until ground crews could pick up the rounds and other debris and throw them in a wood chipper.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 318
Once the tree was removed, PG&E crews worked to restore power.

During the outage, Pacific Grove City Councilman Luke Coletti requested that the city’s police department perform welfare checks on residents, some of whom were elderly. In response, the city activated the Community Emergency Response Team, which is composed partly of volunteers, to go door to door in some neighborhoods to check on residents and see if they needed anything.

Other Pacific Grove neighborhoods also experienced outages last weekend, but power was restored to those homes much more quickly than the homes near Alder Street and in the beach tract.

Power was first restored to customers in the Alder Street neighborhood and about an hour later to homes in the city’s beach tract. [article goes on to talk about PG&E’s messaging problems and Pebble Beach outages]
January 11, 2023, 8:23 a.m.

HIGHWAY 1 REOPENS THROUGH CARMEL
AFTER BEING barricaded since 4:30 a.m. yesterday, Highway 1 through Carmel has now reopened, according to motorists who have driven through the area. The closure, which stretched from Ocean Avenue to Serra Avenue and Carpenter Street, was caused by trees and powerlines that fell onto the roadway during a storm. PG&E crews spent more 18 hours working to clear the damage.

Monterey County Weekly, Feb 14, 2019
Several photos at this link.

UPDATED: Atmospheric river hits Monterey County with gusto, leading to closures throughout region.

NIC COURY - MCW, Pam Marino
https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/news_blog/updatedatmospheric-river-hits-monterey-county-with-gusto-leading-to-closuresthroughout-region/article_7720841c-2fe9-11e9-9f8a-ffedaf449084.html PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 319
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 320
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 321
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 322
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 323
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 324
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 325
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 326
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 327
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 328
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 329
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 330
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 331
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 332
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 333
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 334
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 335
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 336
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 337
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 338
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 339
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 340
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 341
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 342
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 343
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 344
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 345
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 346
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 347
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 348
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 349
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 350
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 351
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 352
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 353
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 354
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 355
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 356
1 THOMPSON

It should also be emphasized that the property owners are very concerned that these trees pose a hazard to their property and a threat to their safety and well-being. For these reasons, the 3 Monterey Cypress trees of concern should be removed followed by the PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 357
2 planting of 3 City approved replacement trees that are better suited to the property and more appropriate to the site.

Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,
Rob Thompson 1-11-23
ISA Certified Arborist # WE-7468A Date
Resource Ecologist
Thompson Wildland Management (TWM)
57 Via Del Rey
Monterey, CA. 93940
Office (831) 372-3796; Cell (831) 277-1419
Email: [email protected] ; Website: www.wildlandmanagement.com PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 358
3 Figure 1. The 3 Monterey Cypress trees of concern are identified as Tree#s 38-40 from right to left. The tree on the far left (Tree#41) is not proposed for removal at this time.

Figure 2. The canopies of Tree#s 38-40 from right to left.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 359
4 Figure 3. Several old pruning wounds along stem of Tree#38 are entry points for biotic disorders, such as decay.

Figure 4. Seam along lower stem of Tree#40 is entry point for potential decay.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 360
5 Figure 5. Balance and symmetry of cypress trees of concern has been adversely affected by utility powerline pruning operations.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 361
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 362
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 363
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 364
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 365
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 366
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 367
ATTACHMENT 1
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 368
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove CA 93950
1/22/23
RE: Requested removal of three (3) Monterey cypress trees at 306 Crocker A. Tree Application 23011
B. Letter from Briscoe Ivestor & Bazel LLP
C. Gates Report
D. Thompson report
Christina Monson
The City of Pacific Grove Arborist has reviewed the application dated 1/14/23 along with the attached documents that was provided by you to Public Works Department. Also reviewed was the trees in question on 1/19/2023. The request for removal is denied.

Chapter 12.40

HIGH-RISK TREES AND NUISANCE TREES
A. Pruning and Removal of Protected Trees. The trees in question do not meet the standard requirement for high risk or nuisance tree.

B. In respect to the opinion of Mr. Francois, the entire state of California has experienced more than two weeks of storms with atmospheric rivers that have battered the state since late December. Other intense storms have occurred in 1964, 1969, 1982, 1986, 1995, 2005 and 2017. Trees have failed but the subject trees at 306 Crocker still stand and unchanged from recent storm activities that include no branch failures. This is in tribute to the proper care and maintenance of the subject trees the “tree owners/managers” have provided.

C. The arborist report provided by Amanda Gates is contradicting and incomplete while merely being based on limited visual only. The THEF forms are incomplete and do not indicate a rating for individual defects. I believe her assessment was influenced by the arborist report she references in her report. “a tree report prepared in 2018 was used as a visual comparison”. She states her report being “ a limited visual assessment from the ground, I could not see all the mentioned cavities”. She also states that “due to the wet site conditions” she was not able to fully assess other issues regarding tree health from the current assessment or the referenced 2018 report. Her assessment is based on assumptions and not definitive information. “the trees appear to be declining”. She states “I did not see signs of imminent failure, like root plate lifting or mounding”. She calls out one tree to be “unremarkable at the time of the assessment”, meaning Normal. Her report ends with offering mitigation measures to reduce risk for all 3 subject trees. Her report does not discuss the proper care and recent BMP the trees recently received. The trees in my professional opinion are in good health and do not indicate signs or symptoms that would warrant removal. The trees were recently pruned in July of 2022 and completed using Best Management Practices - Pruning. BMP is developed by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for application by arborists and urban forestry practitioners to aid in the “interpretation of the professional standards and to guide work practices based on current science and technology.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 369
D. Thompson report. States to “support the arborist report of 2018” which is now antiquated, no longer admissible and only supports the fact that the trees did not warrant removal in 2018. No THEF forms were submitted stating his findings as required and do not indicate a rating for individual defects.

In my professional opinion, The subject trees are rated at a low risk for failure with a high rating for retention. Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.

It is recommended that the subject trees be retained.

HIGH MODERATE LOW
Trees with good health and
structural stability that have the
potential for longevity at the site.

Trees in fair health and/or
possessing structural defects that
may be abated with treatment.

Trees in this category require more
intense management and
monitoring, and may have shorter
life-spans than those in the “high”
category.

Trees in poor health or possessing significant
defects in structure that cannot be abated with
treatment. These trees can be expected to decline
regardless of management. The species or
individual tree may possess either characteristics
that are undesirable in landscape settings or be
unsuited for use areas.

Page 2 ends

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 370
Three subject trees have nearly
a 50% crown to trunk ratio of
foliage with average color,
density and needle length.

Density is considered after
recently having the canopy
pruned. The trees act as one
canopy with a network of
supporting roots creating one
root plate as also indicated in
the Gates report.

Page 3 ends

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 371
The trunks are
upright and well
tapered. No uplift,
mounding or
fracturing to the soil
is present. No soil
saturation is present
indicating proper
drainage.

A wound is present to one tree identified in the
Thompson report as tree #40. Compartmentalization is
noted with no indications of advanced decay such as
unusual swelling, fractured bark or conks.

Page 4 ends

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 372
,ft %UEB -*t-ff

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
Community Development Department - Planning Division
300 Ijorest Avenue, Pacihc Gtrve, CA 93950
T :: 83i.648.3190 . F :: 831.648.318,+ . w"ww.ci.pg.ca.us/cdd Appeal Form
Appeal #;
Date:

Received By
Total Fee:
+ U'al
3l L0
Project lnformation
ProjectAddress: 306CrockerAvenue APN: 006-392-038-000
Application & No.

Applicant Name:

Mailing Address:

EmailAddress:

Owner Name:

Mailing Address:

EmailAddress:
f]on HntlEruot on HRI
Tree Removal Permit, Application Number 2301 1 (filed January 14, 2023) Christina Monson
306 Crocker Avenue, Pacific Grove CA 93950
[email protected]
Same Phone#: same
same
same
Actionl
XRRS: Architectural Review Board
nCOO:Planning Staff
EH RC:Historic Resources Committee
nPC: Ptanning Commission
fltrunC: Natural Resources Committee
ESPnC: Site Plan Review Committee
[ZA: Zoning Administrator
Arborist
Ja
IEC
Denial of Tree Removal Permit
Date of Action 22,2023
Action Taken:

Appeal lnformation
Appellant Name: Phone#: See above
Mailing Address: See above
Email Address: See above
Appeal Deadline 5:00 p.m. sn o2 lo1 12023
Grounds for Appeal: See accompany letter dated Januiary 31 , 2023 with attachments lf necessary, use additional pages.

Fees
Discretionary Fees2 $
$
$
$
$
$
*-*-
Appeal Fee = 25% ofdiscretionary fees =4-
Cost of publication of legal notice3
Photocopies_copies @ 10( each
Postage4_stamps @ 451 each
Other
-.*4A= **'
Total Fee
January 31,2023
Appellant Signature Date
1 See Table 23,70.012-1 in the Pacific Grove Zoning Code, which identifies roles of review authonties as they relate to appeals. 2 Whatever fee was collecled by the city for the application for use permit, architectural approval, variance, etc., or combination of more than one fee if more than one decision is being appealed.
3 Cunently averaging $250-300
a Typically the number of address labels for parcels (or portions thereof) found within a 300 ft radius of the subject parcel (350 ft radius for homes in the Asilomar Dunes area) is approximately 120. Mailing is sent t0 owners and occupants (including mosl individual apartments) of properties.

Rev.1117l12
r\t
t-/
Phone#: (831) 324-s026
.ilNr e I
Christina Monson
tj^iu \va-^:-
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 373
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 374
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 375
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 376
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 377
Tony Francois
(415) 402-2707
[email protected]

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
235 MONTGOMERY STREET,
SUITE 935
SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 402-2700
January 31, 2023
By email and hand delivery
Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
City of Pacific Grove
City Hall, c/o City Manager’s Office
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove CA 93950
[email protected]
Subject: Appeal from City Arborist Denial of Tree Removal Permit 306 Crocker Avenue, Pacific Grove
City Code section 12.70.010
Dear City Clerk:

This letter supplements the appeal form, delivered to your office on behalf of Christina Monson, the homeowner at 306 Crocker Avenue in Pacific Grove, from the City Arborist’s January 22, 2023, denial of her application to remove three high risk trees at the property. A copy of the denial notification (“Denial”) is attached as Attachment 1. A copy of the application (“Application”) is attached as Attachment 2. The appeal filing fee will be paid by check by the homeowner upon hand delivery of the appeal form to your office. You may direct any information related to this appeal to my attention at [email protected] or (916) 835-3966.

The reasons for this appeal are as follows:

Prejudicial Abuse of Discretion: Failure to Proceed in a Manner Re quired By Law The Application was accompanied by three separate certified arborist reports finding that all three trees in question are high risk trees as defined by section 12.60.060, the removal of which is mandatory under that provision of City law. City Code section 12.40.010 requires the use of the International Society of Arborists (ISA) Hazard Tree Evaluation rating system. Under that system, trees’ risks are rated on a scale from 3 to 12, with all trees rated 9 or above considered High Risk under City law, City Code § 12.40.010, and are to be removed, City Code §§ 12.20.040(a)(1), 12.60.060. Among the three arborist reports, all prepared by ISA member arborists, one report prepared in 2018 rated all three trees as a 9 on the hazard scale, and the two PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 378

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
City Clerk, City of Pacific Grove
January 31, 2023

Page 2 ends

prepared in December/January 2022/2023 rated all three trees as 10s on the hazard scale (one report rates one of the trees an 11).

The Denial does not contest any of these ratings. Instead, it erroneously states that the “trees in question do not meet the standard requirement for high risk or nuisance trees.” Then the Denial (at page 2) uses a different assessment scale and concludes based on that scale that the trees should not be removed.

The City Arborist’s failure to follow the ISA Hazard Tree scale, as required by Pacific Grove City Code sections 12.40.010 and 12.60.060, was a failure to proceed in a manner required by law, amounting to prejudicial abuse of discretion. As demonstrated in the Application, the approval of the Application was a ministerial duty on the part of the City staff.

There was no discretion to deny it, since the City Code requires that it be approved and the trees in question be removed.

During a site inspection on January 19, 2023 (during which the City Arborist spent at most five minutes looking at the trees), the City Arborist and City Public Works Director told the homeowners the following two things on this topic: (1) that in their view they are not required to follow the City Code on the use of the ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation system, and (2) that if they did follow that system, they would be required to approve more tree removals than their personal preferences would allow for. Public Works Director Daniel Gho specifically said “We see tens and elevens every week all over town. If we allowed them all to be removed, there wouldn’t be any trees left in PG.” These two statements reinforce the conclusion that the City Arborist committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion by refusing to proceed in a manner required by law in approving the Application. Further, his statements at the site visit demonstrate that if the proper rule from the City Code were followed, he would have (albeit reluctantly) approved the Application.

3. The arborist report supporting the removal application applies the ISA Hazard Tree Evaluation system, cites the relevant provision of the City Code, and states that the tree in question is high risk. The report does not include worksheets or other back up (other than photographs) and does not even provide the actual hazard rating number for the tree, just the conclusion that it is high PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 379

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
City Clerk, City of Pacific Grove
January 31, 2023

Page 3 ends

risk and should be removed per City Code. This application was approved almost immediately with no objection by the City to the application of the ISA Hazard Tree Evaluation system.

The Beautification and Natural Resources Commission should grant this appeal and issue the permit requested in the Application for 306 Crocker Avenue.

Prejudicial Abuse of Discretion: No Substantial Evidence to Deny the Application The Denial does not directly disagree with the Hazard Tree Evaluation scores presented by the three arborist reports. It also does not offer any other competing score on that system.

Since the only factual question involved is whether the trees are rated 9 or higher on the ISA Hazard Tree scale, the City Arborist’s failure to rebut the ratings presented in the three arborist reports or propose any other number is prejudicial abuse of discretion in that the record lacks any substantial evidence that the trees in question, using the ISA Hazard Tree Evaluation system, are not all 9 or above and therefore require removal.

Nor is there any substantial evidence in the record for the City Arborist’s conclusion that the trees are safe, healthy, and do not require removal. As related above, the Arborist only spent 5 minutes or less looking directly at the trees on January 19. Each of the two most recent arborist reports is based on approximately 2 hours examining the trees, and the 2018 report was based on sending a specialized climber to the top to examine and photograph the center of the tree trunks from the topping cuts. The Denial faults one of the arborist reports for being based on visual examination of the trees, and yet that is all the City Arborist did, for far less time than the any of the independent arborists.

The Denial also lacks any substantial evidence in the record to support the Arborist’s conclusory statements about the mental state of the independent arborists or why they wrote what they wrote or came to the professional conclusions they came to.

The lack of substantial evidence is bolstered by the fact that the City approved the 524 Crocker application, described above, without requiring any ISA Hazard Tree score for the protected tree at that property, without having done a site inspection (so far as the record reflects) and without having tried to divine what that independent arborist’s motives or thought processes were.

Further, the Denial is arbitrary and capricious for failing to disclose the rating methodology used by the City Arborist in a way that allows for adequate review or response by PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 380

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
City Clerk, City of Pacific Grove
January 31, 2023

Page 4 ends

the applicant. The Arborist’s use of a methodology that is not disclosed in the City Code, is not explained in the Denial, and is not provided to the applicant in advance, is arbitrary and capricious and constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that it fails to proceed in a manner required by law.

The Commission should grant this appeal, approve the Application, and issue the removal permit for 306 Crocker Avenue.

Due Process Issues
The Application specifically states that while the homeowner understood the Application to be complete, if the Arborist determined that any information was missing, that he advise the homeowner so any missing information could be supplied. The Arborist made no request for additional information, and yet concluded in the Denial that information was missing from one of the arborist reports. The failure to afford the homeowner the opportunity specifically requested to supply any missing information was a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that it failed to afford due process and to proceed in a manner required by law.

The Denial also violates the homeowner’s due process right because she was not afforded notice or an opportunity to respond to a proposed denial before the Arborist finalized it. Basic constitutional principles of due process require that an applicant be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to alleged defects in an application and the basis for any proposed denial of the application before it is final. This is particularly true where a reviewing body may give deference of any kind to the factual determinations embedded in the permit decision.

The Denial also violates the homeowner’s right to have the Application considered on the same criteria as other applicants who were approved for removal, such as the 524 Crocker application which did not include worksheets or even a Hazard Rating Number.

The Denial also violates due process by failing to disclose the rating methodology used by the City Arborist in a way that allows for adequate review or response by the applicant. The Arborist’s use of a methodology that is not disclosed in the City Code, is not explained in the Denial, and is not provided to the applicant in advance, constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that it fails to proceed in a manner required by law.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 381

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
City Clerk, City of Pacific Grove
January 31, 2023

Page 5 ends

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Denial is a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that it is based on a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. The Commission should grant this appeal, approve the Application, and issue the removal permit for 306 Crocker Avenue.

First Amendment Issues
During the January 19, 2023, site visit by the City Arborist and the City Public Works Director, the homeowners reminded the Public Works Director that they intended to pursue their legal rights to obtain the tree removal permit. The Public Works Director responded “Don’t threaten us.” This statement is prima facia evidence that the Denial is at least partially motivated in retaliation against the homeowners for exercising their First Amendment rights to petition their city government and the courts for a redress of grievances.

It also speaks very poorly of the City’s commitment to First Amendment principles generally. City staff have a constitutionally imposed obligation to consider permit applications on their merits, and not act adversely based on the applicants’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. The Denial was a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that it is the result of City staff failing to proceed in a manner required by law.

Further, City Code section 12.10.020(l) finds that one basis for protecting trees in private areas is to “enhance the architectural character of a neighborhood, accent or soften the presence of structures, promote visual formality and aesthetic interest, and screen undesirable views.” These interests, generally architectural and aesthetic, implicate the First Amendment and the homeowners’ corresponding right as against the city to be free of the City’s preferred aesthetic and architectural judgment. The Denial implements the City’s preferred public aesthetic and architectural preferences and as applied to the homeowners’ property, amounts to coerced speech in violation of the First Amendment.

For the foregoing reasons, the Denial is a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that it is based on a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. The Commission should grant this appeal, approve the Application, and issue the removal permit for 306 Crocker Avenue.

Takings Issues
The Denial prevents the homeowners from removing three trees that they own, located on their property. The age, condition, and size of the trees, their proximity to the home, and the gravity of harm that failure of any of the trees poses (including death, injury, and destruction of PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 382

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
City Clerk, City of Pacific Grove
January 31, 2023

Page 6 ends

property) are reasonable bases for the homeowners to prefer to remove their own trees. The City’s insistence (implemented by the Denial) that the trees remain results in the City having taken an easement for the physical occupation of the homeowners’ property with the three trees.

The imposition of this easement without due process and without just compensation violates the California and United States Constitutions.

The City’s insistence that the trees remain, in spite of three separate independent arborist reports classifying the trees as High Risk Trees which the City code treats as dangerous enough that even as protected trees they should be removed, results in a requirement that if they were to sell the home, the homeowners would have to disclose the arborist reports and the fact that the City has denied a removal permit for the trees. The likely impact of this disclosure is a substantial reduction in the market value of the property, which would serve as one measure of the amount of compensation due for the City’s physical taking of the tree easement.

Other Harms
The City’s insistence that the trees remain also causes ongoing emotional distress to the homeowners, who reasonably fear the harms they would suffer if any of the trees fail. The risk posed by the trees has led them to relocate where they sleep within their own home, and on windy nights, to remove themselves at substantial personal cost to paid accommodations elsewhere. It is not too much to expect the City not to interfere with its residents’ peaceful enjoyment of their own homes. The City Code reasonably balances the public interest in the value of trees with the danger that High Risk Trees pose by requiring (not just allowing) the removal of High Risk Trees. This is a common sense approach that accounts for the fact that in an urban setting one cannot simply allow old trees to die and fall over, but instead must manage the urban forest through the orderly removal and (where warranted) replacement of high risk trees with young and vigorous trees that renew the cycle.

Conclusion
Based on all of the foregoing, we ask that the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission approve this appeal and the Application and issue the removal permit for 306 Crocker Avenue.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 383

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
City Clerk, City of Pacific Grove
January 31, 2023

Page 7 ends

Given the distress that the homeowners have experienced due to the risks posed by their own trees, we also ask if it is feasible for the Commission to expedite its consideration of this appeal. Again, please feel free to direct any questions regarding this appeal to me at [email protected] or (916) 835-3966.

Sincerely,

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Tony Francois
Partner
TF:ajw
cc:

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 384
Tony Francois
(415) 402-2707
[email protected]

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
235 MONTGOMERY STREET,
SUITE 935
SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 402-2700
April 7, 2023
By email
Mayor Peake
Members of the City Council
City of Pacific Grove
City Hall
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove CA 93950
[email protected]
Subject: Appeal from City Arborist Denial of Tree Removal Permit 306 Crocker Avenue, Pacific Grove
City Code section 12.70.010
Dear Mayor Peake and members of the Pacific Grove City Council:

This letter supplements the January 31, 2023, appeal form and letter with attachments addressed to the City Clerk’s office of the same date, on behalf of Christina Monson, the homeowner at 306 Crocker Avenue in Pacific Grove, from the City Arborist’s January 22, 2023, denial of her application to remove three high risk trees at the property. This appeal to the City Council follows a hearing on the appeal at the Pacific Grove Beautification and Natural Resources Commission on March 21, 2023, at which the Commission failed to adopt a decision on the appeal by the necessary majority vote.

The reasons for this appeal are as follows:

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Pacific Grove
April 7, 2023

Page 2 ends

prepared in December/January 2022/2023 rated all three trees as 10s on the hazard scale (one report rates one of the trees an 11).

There was no discretion to deny it, since the City Code requires that it be approved and the trees in question be removed.

Further evidence that the City Arborist failed to act in a manner required by law on the Application, by failing to follow the ISA Hazard Tree Evaluation system, can be found in the City’s recent (December 29, 2022) approval of a tree removal permit for a protected tree at 524 Crocker Avenue. The application and approval for this tree removal are attached as Attachment 3 to our January 31, 2023, letter. The arborist report supporting the removal application applies the ISA Hazard Tree Evaluation system, cites the relevant provision of the City Code, and states that the tree in question is high risk. The report does not include worksheets or other back up (other than photographs) and does not even provide the actual hazard rating number for the tree, just the conclusion that it is high risk and should be removed per City Code. This application was PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 386

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Pacific Grove
April 7, 2023

Page 3 ends

approved almost immediately with no objection by the City to the application of the ISA Hazard Tree Evaluation system.

The City Council should grant this appeal and issue the permit requested in the Application for 306 Crocker Avenue.

Further, the Denial is arbitrary and capricious for failing to disclose the rating methodology used by the City Arborist in a way that allows for adequate review or response by PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 387

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Pacific Grove
April 7, 2023

Page 4 ends

The Commission should grant this appeal, approve the Application, and issue the removal permit for 306 Crocker Avenue.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 388

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Pacific Grove
April 7, 2023

Page 5 ends

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Denial is a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that it is based on a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. The City Council should grant this appeal, approve the Application, and issue the removal permit for 306 Crocker Avenue.

It also speaks very poorly of the City’s commitment to First Amendment principles generally. City staff have a constitutional obligation to consider permit applications on their merits, and not act adversely based on the applicants’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.

The Denial was a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that it is the result of City staff failing to proceed in a manner required by law.

For the foregoing reasons, the Denial is a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that it is based on a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. The City Council should grant this appeal, approve the Application, and issue the removal permit for 306 Crocker Avenue.

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Pacific Grove
April 7, 2023

Page 6 ends

The imposition of this easement without due process and without just compensation violates the California and United States Constitutions.

Other Harms
The City’s insistence that the trees remain also causes ongoing emotional distress to the homeowners, who reasonably fear the harms they would suffer if any of the trees fail. The risk posed by the trees has led them to relocate where they sleep within their own home, and on windy nights, to remove themselves at substantial personal cost to paid accommodations elsewhere. It is not too much to expect the City not to interfere with its residents’ peaceful enjoyment of their own homes. The City Code reasonably balances the public interest in the value of trees with the danger that High Risk Trees pose by requiring (not just allowing) the removal of High Risk Trees. This is a common-sense approach that accounts for the fact that in an urban setting one cannot simply allow old trees to die and fall over, but instead must manage the urban forest through the orderly removal and (where warranted) replacement of High Risk trees with young and vigorous trees that renew the cycle.

Scope of Review on Appeal from City Arborist Decision
The City Council’s review of the City Arborists decision should be based on the reasons stated in the Arborists Denial Letter. On February 8, 2023, we emailed City Public Works Director Daniel Gho inquiring about the scope of information on which the City staff would PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 390

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Pacific Grove
April 7, 2023

Page 7 ends

present the appeal, specifically asking that “the staff presentation [be] limited to the information in the denial document, and that after the fact new information not be presented[.]” Mr. Gho responded by referring to the denial document and concluding “you are correct and no new information will be submitted.” We object in advance to new information beyond the denial document being presented to the City Council to explain the City Arborist’s denial of the removal permit, in particular to any testimony by the City Arborist once the record has been closed and to which Ms. Monson would have no opportunity to respond.

Conclusion
Based on all of the foregoing, we ask that the City Council approve this appeal and the Application and issue the removal permit for 306 Crocker Avenue.

Please feel free to direct any questions regarding this appeal to me at [email protected] or (916) 835-3966.

Sincerely,

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Tony Francois
Partner
TF:ajw
cc:

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 391
Agenda No. 12 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: David Santos, Police Commander
MEETING DATE: April 19, 2023
SUBJECT: AB481 Military Equipment Use Annual Report
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the report.

DISCUSSION
On September 30, 2021, Governor Newsom signed California Assembly Bill (AB) 481. AB 481 requires California law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of a Military Equipment Use Policy by their applicable governing body prior to taking certain actions related to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment as defined by the legislature.

The intention behind AB481 is to increase transparency, accountability, and oversight for acquisition and use of equipment. It provides safeguards to protect public’s welfare, safety, civil rights and liberties.

The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities may impact the public's safety and welfare. The public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by local government officials, as well as a right to participate in any government agency's decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment. Decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used should give strong consideration to the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, and should be based on meaningful public input.

The Pacific Grove Police Department has a robust military equipment policy. The policy is available for the public to view on the department’s website. (Reference Policy 706) The Pacific Grove Police Department conducted a public meeting to gather input to be included in the annual report regarding the Military Equipment Policy on March 16, 2023. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers at 6pm. The meeting was open to the public and was advertised on the police department’s website, social media platforms, and the City of Pacific Grove website.

The meeting was open to the public and available both in person and virtually. One member of the public attended virtually. No members of the public attended in-person.

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall submit a military equipment report to the City PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 392
Council for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072). The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.

The report shall include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year as required by Government Code § 7072 for each type of military equipment in department inventory.

1. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.

2. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.

The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.

3. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.

4. 5. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.

If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

6. OPTIONS
Receive the report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Transparency, Accountability and Communication: Implement programs, processes, revisions, and training to improve and advance the City's efforts.

Attachments
2022 Military Equipment Use Annual Report
Military Use Equipment List
Military Use Annual Report Slide Presentation
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 393
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 394
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 395
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 396
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 397
Pacific Grove Police Department
Military Equipment List
March 2023
Less Lethal Weapon
Type 40mm Launcher
Description Penn Arms GL1 40mm launcher
Quantity 2
Capabilities The Penn Arms GL 40mm launcher will launch a 40mm less lethal projectile approximately 130 feet Expected
lifespan
15 years
Manufacturer's
description
A 40mm compact single-shot break-open frame launcher with a rifled barrel and folding stock. Features include: Double-action trigger, trigger lock push button and hammer lock safeties Purpose and
authorized uses
To compel an individual to cease his/her actions when such less lethal weapon presents a reasonable option. A verbal warning of the intended use of the device should precede its application.

Fiscal impact $1500 (each)
Legal and
procedural rules
Refer to policies 300, 301, 301.8-301.11
Required
training
Sworn members utilizing the 40mm less lethal impact rounds are trained in their use by CA POST certified less lethal instructors.

Compliance
mechanisms
Use is subject to the applicable policies (300.5, 300.5.1, 300.5.3, 301, 303.4).

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 398
Pacific Grove Police Department
Military Equipment List
March 2023
Less Lethal Weapon
Type Less Lethal Shotgun
Description Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun with Orange Stock and Fore-end denoting less lethal Quantity 5
Capabilities The Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12-guauge Drag Stabilized Round up to a distance of 75 feet Expected
lifespan
25 years
Manufacturer's
description
The Remington Model 870 Pump Shotgun is a reliable 12-gauge with double-action bars for smooth pump operation. A steellined/grooved fore-end provides a stronger grip, while the Flexitab feeding system provides positive and easier cycling. A less-lethal application shotgun is available with the addition of a blaze orange synthetic SpeedFeed stock and fore-end for the instant recognition required.

Purpose and
authorized uses
To compel an individual to cease his/her actions when such munitions present a reasonable option. A verbal warning of the intended use of the device should precede its application.

Fiscal impact $950 each
Legal and
procedural rules
Refer to policies 300, 301, 301.8-301.11
Required
training
Sworn members utilizing the Remington 870 less lethal shotguns are trained in their use by CA POST certified less lethal instructors.

Compliance
mechanisms
Use is subject to the applicable policies (300.5, 300.5.1, 300.5.3, 301, 303.4).

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 399
Pacific Grove Police Department
Military Equipment List
March 2023
Less Lethal Ammunition
Type Defense Technology Exact Impact 40mm kinetic energy projectiles Description 40mm, foam-tipped kinetic energy fired from an agency-authorized 40mm launcher.

Quantity 38
Capabilities Operational range 5-131 ft.

Expected
lifespan
5 yrs.

Manufacturer's
description
The eXact iMpact™ 40 mm Sponge Round is a point-of-aim, point-of-impact direct-fire round. This lightweight, high-speed projectile consisting of a plastic body and sponge nose that is spin stabilized via the incorporated rifling collar and the 40 mm launcher’s rifled barrel. The round utilizes smokeless powder as the propellant, and, therefore, have velocities that are extremely consistent. Used for Crowd Control, Patrol, and Tactical Applications.

Fiscal impact Approximately $20 per projectile
Legal and
procedural rules
Refer to policies 300, 301, 301.8-301.11
Required
training
Sworn members utilizing the 40mm less lethal impact rounds are trained in their use by CA POST certified less lethal instructors.

Compliance
mechanisms
Use is subject to the applicable policies (300.5, 300.5.1, 300.5.3, 301, 303.4).

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 400
Pacific Grove Police Department
Military Equipment List
March 2023
Less Lethal Ammunition
Type Defense Technology/Safariland Drag Stabilized 12-Guage Less Lethal Round Description A less lethal 2.5-inch 12-gauge shotgun round firing a ballistic fiber bag filled with 40 grams of lead shot at a velocity of 270 feet per second (FPS).

Quantity 340
Capabilities 12-guauge Drag Stabilized Round has an effective range from 20 feet up to a distance of 75 feet Expected
lifespan
5 years
Manufacturer's
description The 12-Gauge Drag Stabilized™ Round is comprised of a translucent 12-Gauge shell loaded with a 40 gram, tear shaped bag made from a cotton and ballistic material blend and filled with #9 shot. This design utilizes four (4) stabilizing tails. The 12-Gauge Drag Stabilized™ Round utilizes smokeless powder as the propellant.

Fiscal impact Approximately $5 per round
Legal and
procedural rules
Refer to policies 300, 301, 301.8-301.11
Required
training
Sworn members utilizing the Remington 870 less lethal shotguns are trained in their use by CA POST certified less lethal instructors.

Compliance
mechanisms
Use is subject to the applicable policies (300.5, 300.5.1, 300.5.3, 301, 303.4).

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 401
Pacific Grove Police Department
Military Equipment List
March 2023
Lethal Weapon
Type Semi-Auto Patrol Rifle
Description Daniel Defense DDM4V7, Semi-Auto rifle, black in color, with aluminum handguard, and adjustable stock.

Quantity 9
Capabilities A rifle that fires an intermediate-power cartridge (.223/5.56) which is more powerful than a standard pistol.

Expected
lifespan
10 years
Manufacturer's
description
The DDM4 V7 AR15 style firearm features M-LOK attachment technology with the Daniel Defense MFR 15.0 rail. Built around a Cold Hammer Forged, 16-inch barrel, the V7 has a DD improved Flash Suppressor to reduce flash signature. The mid-length gas system provides smooth and reliable cycling under any condition and reduces both perceived recoil and wear on moving parts. With the MLOK attachment points that run along 7 positions and an uninterrupted 1913 Picatinny rail on top, the V7 has plenty of room for the sights, optics, and accessories the user may require. The independently ambi GRIP-N-RIP Charging Handle accommodates left- and right-handed shooters. This rifle also comes with the ergonomic Daniel Defense Buttstock and Pistol Grip.

Purpose and
authorized uses
The Daniel Defense DDM4V7 enables officers when in compliance with the PGPD's Use of Force Policy, to address short to long distance threats, or those threats who are heavily armed, armored or both. Further, in both short and long-distance deployments, they allow officers precision shot placement minimizing the risk to officers and innocent citizens. There are no known alternatives to these weapons that will provide the same level of distance and precision.

Fiscal impact $1,310.00 (each)
Legal and
procedural rules
Refer to policies 300, 300.4, 300.4.1, 300.4.2, 300.5.1, 300.5.2, 300.5.3, 300.11, 303 Required
training
Sworn members utilizing the Daniel Defense DDM4V7 are trained is their use by CA POST certified firearms instructors.

Compliance
mechanisms
Use is subject to the applicable policies (300.4, 300.9, 303.3.2, 303.5, 303.7, 303.8, 303.9) PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 402
Pacific Grove Police Department
Military Equipment List
March 2023
Lethal Weapon
Type Semi-Auto Patrol Rifle
Description Colt LE6920, Semi-Auto rifle, black in color, with plastic handguard, and adjustable stock.

Quantity 13
Capabilities A rifle that fires an intermediate-power cartridge (.223/5.56) which is more powerful than a standard pistol.

Expected
lifespan
10 years
Manufacturer's
description
The Colt M4 Carbine is a Gas Operated Semi-Auto rifle, chambered in 223 Remington/5.56 NATO. The M4 Carbine features a 16.1" barrel and Reversible safety selector and has an overall expanded length of 35.5". The M4 Carbine utilizes a 4-position collapsible stock and A2 flash hider.

Purpose and
authorized uses
The Colt M4 Carbine enables officers when in compliance with the PGPD's Use of Force Policy, to address short to long distance threats, or those threats who are heavily armed, armored or both. Further, in both short and long-distance deployments, they allow officers precision shot placement minimizing the risk to officers and innocent citizens. There are no known alternatives to these weapons that will provide the same level of distance and precision.

Fiscal impact $1,100 (each)
Legal and
procedural rules
Refer to policies 300, 300.4, 300.4.1, 300.4.2, 300.5.1, 300.5.2, 300.5.3, 300.11, 303 Required
training
Sworn members utilizing the Colt M4 Carbine are trained is their use by CA POST certified firearms instructors.

Compliance
mechanisms
Use is subject to the applicable policies (300.4, 300.9, 303.3.2, 303.5, 303.7, 303.8, 303.9) PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 403
Pacific Grove Police Department
Military Equipment List
March 2023
Lethal Ammunition
Type Speer Gold Dot Duty Ammunition .223 Caliber 55 grain rifle round Description Speer Gold Dot features nickel plated brass cases and Boxer primers and is a non-corrosive round. The Gold Dot projectile goes through a process of joining the jacket and core one molecule at a time which eradicates the potential for the leading cause of bullet failure (jacket/core separation). This process will guarantee extraordinary weight retention through barriers as strong as auto-glass.

Gold Dot rifle ammunition asserts remarkable accuracy with exact tolerances and unparalleled bullet uniformity.

Quantity 6,480
Capabilities Operational range 0-300 yards
Expected
lifespan
10 years
Manufacturer's
description
SPEER LE® Gold Dot® Duty Rifle brings proven bullet technology to rifle platform. The Gold Dot® bullet was the first high performance, bonded-core bullet available in handgun ammunition, and has since set the bar for duty ammunition. The nation's number one law enforcement option is now available in rifle ammunition for agencies everywhere. These specially designed loads bring law enforcement rifle ammunition to the next level. Gold Dot rifle bullets are optimized to ensure expansion out of barrels down to 10" at a wide variety of velocities out to 200 yards. This kind of performance greatly increases the capabilities of duty rifles and gives law enforcement personnel a distinct advantage when it matters most. In addition, these new loads boast outstanding feeding in short, very short and standard-length AR platforms. Like their handgun counterparts, the Gold Dot rifle bullets are constructed using Gold Dot technology. The process of joining the jacket and core one molecule at a time eliminates the potential for the leading cause of bullet failure—jacket/core separation. It also ensures impressive weight retention through barriers as tough as auto-glass. In addition to being tough, Gold Dot rifle loads boast outstanding accuracy. Exact tolerances and unprecedented bullet uniformity of jacket thickness give Gold Dot rifle loads outstanding accuracy. In addition, these loads feature flash suppressed propellants and a muzzle velocity of up to 3000 fps. The versatility, reliability, and superior construction of the new Speer LE Gold Dot Duty Rifle loads allow law enforcement agencies to utilize this tested and proven bullet technology in duty rifles with complete confidence.

Purpose and
authorized uses
To project a force against a selected target to have an effect and stop the threat when other reasonable options are not viable. A verbal warning should precede its application.

Fiscal impact $294.00 per case of 500
Legal and
procedural rules
Refer to policies 300, 300.4, 300.4.1, 300.5, 300.5.1, 300.5.3, 300.11, 303, 303.3 Required
training
Sworn members utilizing Speer Gold Dot ammunition are trained in their use by CA POST certified instructors.

Compliance
mechanisms
Use is subject to applicable policies (303.3, 303.3.2)
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 404
Pacific Grove Police Department
Military Equipment List
March 2023
Lethal Ammunition
Type Winchester Target Ammunition 5.56 Caliber 55 grain rifle round Description Winchester Target Ammunition features brass cases and Boxer primers and is a non-corrosive round. This ammunition is loaded with a full metal jacket bullet which is known for its positive functioning and exceptional accuracy. On impact this bullet does not expand and is ideal for target shooting.

Quantity 2,600
Capabilities 0-300 yards
Expected
lifespan
10 years
Manufacturer's
description
Winchester "USA White Box" stands for consistent performance and outstanding value, offering high-quality ammunition to suit a wide range of shooter's needs by providing consistent accuracy, positive functioning, and no expansion.

Purpose and
authorized uses
Practice
Fiscal impact $500.00 per case of 1000
Legal and
procedural rules
Refer to policies 300, 300.4, 300.4.1, 300.4.2, 300.5.1, 300.5.3, 300.11 303 Required
training
Sworn members utilizing Winchester Target Ammunition are trained in their use by CA POST certified instructors.

Compliance
mechanisms
Use is subject to applicable policies (303.3, 303.3.2)
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 405
Pacific Grove Police Department
Military Equipment List
March 2023
Lethal Ammunition
Type Federal Target Ammunition .223 Caliber 55 grain rifle round Description Federal American Eagle Target Ammunition features brass cases and Boxer primers and is a non-corrosive round. This ammunition is loaded with a full metal jacket bullet which is known for its positive functioning and exceptional accuracy. On impact this bullet does not expand and is ideal for target shooting.

Quantity 4,000
Capabilities 0-300 yards
Expected
lifespan
10 years
Manufacturer's
description
American Eagle® rifle ammunition offers consistent, accurate performance at a price that's perfect for high-volume shooting. The loads feature quality bullets, reloadable brass cases and dependable primers.

Ideal for target practice
Accurate and reliable
Consistent primers and brass
Purpose and
authorized uses
Practice
Fiscal impact $217.00 per case of 500
Legal and
procedural rules
Refer to policies 300, 300.4, 300.4.1, 300.4.2, 300.5.1, 300.5.3, 300.11 303 Required
training
Sworn members utilizing Federal Target Ammunition are trained in their use by CA POST certified instructors.

Compliance
mechanisms
Use is subject to applicable policies (303.3, 303.3.2)
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 406
Pacific Grove Police Department
Military Equipment List
March 2023
Lethal Ammunition
Type Winchester Ranger Frangible Ammunition .223 Caliber 55 grain rifle round Description Winchester Ranger Frangible Ammunition features brass cases and Boxer primers and is a non-corrosive round. This ammunition is loaded with lead-free-powdered metal projectiles. There is no jacket, plating or surface treatment on the projectiles, nothing but fine, low-energy dust particles remain after impact with hard surface targets and reducing ricochet and the target backsplash.

Quantity 480
Capabilities 0-300 yards
Expected
lifespan
10 years
Manufacturer's
description
This Winchester Ranger 223 Remington ammo features 55 grain centerfire frangible bullets. This Winchester Ranger centerfire Frangible gives military law enforcement individual a realistic, reduced hazard option for close quarters training and special purpose application. By including lead-free-powdered metal projectiles, Ranger Frangible centerfire ammunition delivers superior frangibility against hard targets and is lethal against soft targets. Since there is no jacket, plating or surface treatment on the projectiles, nothing but fine, low-energy dust particles remain after impact with hard surface targets and reducing ricochet and the target backsplash.

With a muzzle velocity of 3150 feet per second and muzzle energy of 1435 foot pounds, making this Winchester Ranger 223 Remington ideal for target shooting.

Purpose and
authorized uses
Practice
Fiscal impact $21.50 per box of 20
Legal and
procedural rules
Refer to policies 300, 300.4, 300.4.1, 300.4.2, 300.5.1, 300.5.3, 300.11 303 Required
training
Sworn members utilizing Winchester Ranger Frangible Ammunition are trained in their use by CA POST certified instructors.

Compliance
mechanisms
Use is subject to applicable policies (303.3, 303.3.2)
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 407
Pacific Grove Police Department
Military Equipment List
March 2023
Lethal Ammunition
Type Federal BallistiClean Lead Free Frangible Ammunition 5.56 Caliber 45 grain rifle round Description Federal BallistiClean Frangible Ammunition features brass cases and Boxer primers and is a non-corrosive round. This ammunition is loaded with lead-free-powdered metal projectiles. There is no jacket, plating or surface treatment on the projectiles, nothing but fine, low-energy dust particles remain after impact with hard surface targets and reducing ricochet and the target backsplash.

Quantity 1,640
Capabilities 0-200 yards
Expected
lifespan
10 years
Manufacturer's
description
The BallistiClean RHT is the first lead-free training bullet to be accurate out to and past 200 yards. It also functions in various semi and full-auto guns. The entire load is lead-free, meaning it is ideal for indoor training. Law enforcement personnel can now train realistically and lead-free with this new BallistiClean RHT offering.

Purpose and
authorized uses
Practice
Fiscal impact $9.99 per box of 20
Legal and
procedural rules
Refer to policies 300, 300.4, 300.4.1, 300.4.2, 300.5.1, 300.5.3, 300.11 303 Required
training
Sworn members utilizing Winchester Target Ammunition are trained in their use by CA POST certified instructors.

Compliance
mechanisms
Use is subject to applicable policies (303.3, 303.3.2)
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 408
City Council April 19, 2023
AB 481
Military Equipment
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 409
 September 30, 2021 – Governor Newsom signed
AB 481
 Increase transparency, accountability, oversight
for acquisition and use of equipment
 Provide safeguards to protect public’s welfare,
safety, civil rights and liberties
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 410
 Annual town hall meeting within 30 days of
presenting the annual report to City Council.
 Community meeting March 16, 2023
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 411
Annual Report

1. A summary of:
o How military equipment was used & its purpose.
o Complaints or concerns related to military equipment
and any actions taken in response.

2. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, and how the funds were sourced.

3. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.

4. Intention to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 412
PGPD Military Equipment
• (2) 40mm Projectile Launchers
• (5) Less Lethal Shotguns
• (22) Department Issued Rifles
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 413
Monterey Peninsula Special Response Unit (SRU)
• PGPD receives and provides mutual aid to/from all
area law enforcement agencies.
• Agencies are required by AB 481 to get approval from
Governing Body for the equipment owned. There is
currently no SRU equipment owned or maintained by
the City of Pacific Grove.
• One member on SRU and one member on CNT
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 414
City Council City of Pacific Grove
Questions?
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 415
Agenda No. 12 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: April 19, 2023
SUBJECT: FY21/22 CIP Lookback
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive report on the Fiscal Year 21/22 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

DISCUSSION
Background
Before the start of each fiscal year, the City adopts an annual budget. There are two primary components to the City’s annual budget: the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the Operating Budget. Council Policy 400-6 defines a capital improvement or asset as buildings, machinery, or equipment, with an original cost in excess of $5,000 and a useful life of three years or more.

At the May 19, 2021, City Council meeting, staff presented, and Council approved the FY21/22 CIP which included 15 projects - 1 general fund project, 11 projects funded from various non-general fund sources (non-general fund projects) and 3 multi-funded projects derived from a combination of General Fund and Non-General Fund allocations. The CIP serves as a living document to drive the City’s larger maintenance and asset management needs; as a result, it may require amendments and updates throughout the year to reflect changes that arise during implementation. The following table provides a chronology of subsequent FY21/22 CIP amendments approved by the City Council:

Date of
Council
Review
Overview of FY21/22 CIP Amendments
October 20,
2021
A budget adjustment was authorized to carry forward 12
projects from the FY20/21 CIP to the FY21/22 CIP:
11 Non-General Fund Projects
1 Multi-Funded Project
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 416
November 3,
2021
A budget adjustment was authorized to fund three (3)
additional CIP projects harnessing ARPA funding:

Del Monte Blvd Storm Water Infrastructure
Improvements

1. 2. Caledonia Park Children’s Picnic Area

3. Jewell Park Gazebo Repair & Maintenance
December 15,
2021
A budget adjustment was authorized to fund five (5)
additional CIP projects harnessing ARPA funding:

1. George Washington Park Bleachers

2. George Washington Park Picnic Tables
George Washington Park Young Children's ADA
Compliant Playground Equipment

3. 4. Arnett Park Picnic Tables
El Marie Dyke Park and Arnett Park Decompsed
Granite

5. June 1, 2022 A budget adjustment was authorized amending the budget; this included adding the PW Fire Repair Project (TRC21-02) to the CIP.

The amended FY21/22 CIP included 36 projects. Projects range from vital city facility repairs, road rehabilitation and maintenance activities, and pedestrian/safety improvements to commencing and/or continuing construction of large-scale, multiyear projects.

Throughout the fiscal year, staff worked diligently on executing the CIP. Successfully completing a project generally requires progression through the following project phases:

Project Development Phase. This starting phase for each new project requires staff to determine vital project details in anticipation of the RFP/bid phase. This often requires the development of specifications and/or construction drawings and plans.

1. RFP/Bid Phase. This phase requires solicitation and review of proposals/bids, as well as a selection of a consultant or contractor to provide the specific commodity or service within the parameters outlined in the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

2. Contract Phase. The contract phase ensures the City has legally binding agreements with the entities performing work. This phase also requires City Council authorization of agreements over $40,000.

3. Construction/Work in Progress. This phase of the project often includes street closures and ground disturbance to install new infrastructure and/or repair existing infrastructure. CIP projects are not solely limited to traditional construction projects, the City has several essential projects that are more inconspicuous. Examples include interior improvements to city facilities and preparation of environmental documents or plan sets for multiyear infrastructure projects. In the latter scenario, the first year of funding is often designated solely for design or environmental document preparation, and subsequent years for construction.

4. Once a project successfully navigates through these phases it can be deemed complete. A project is deemed completed when the scope of work has been executed and the project is considered finished.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 417
deemed completed when the scope of work has been executed and the project is considered finished.

For a project to be deemed complete, the City inspects the final work and submits the necessary documentation to the City, County, and/or State if applicable.

In rare instances, during execution at any of the above noted steps, a project can be deemed infeasible.

Infeasible projects are labelled as deferred or deferred indefinitely depending on the degree of infeasibility as described below.

Deferred. This status applies to projects that were determined to be infeasible in the given fiscal year. Infeasibility can be determined by a variety of factors including time or budgetary constraints, conflicts, readiness, and additional information obtained during project development.

Projects in the deferred category have the potential to return to future CIPs.

Deferred Indefinitely. The status indicates the project has not been completed and has been deemed infeasible by staff. Infeasibility in this scenario is not contingent upon budgetary or time constraints, but rather due to general project impracticality. Projects in the deferred indefinitely category will not be recommended for funding by staff in any future CIP.

FY21/22 RECAP
In total the amended FY21/22 CIP is comprised of 36 projects. Of the 36 projects:
27 are complete
5 are in the Construction/Work in Progress Phase
This figure includes multi-year projects that were anticipated to span multiple fiscal years (ex: PW Fire Repair Project)
2 are in the Bids/RFP phase
This figure represents two projects that staff pursued supplemental grant funding as original project allocations were not sufficient. Funding has been awarded and RFPs are being developed for the projects
1 is in the Project Development Phase
1 is deferred
Attachment 1 projects a list of each of the projects, their current status, and additional information.

NOTABLE PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
Notable project highlights include:

Completion of the $2.8M Point Pinos Coastal Trail Project! This primarily grant funded project addressed ~1 mile of coastline known as Point Pinos.

Prior to the project, Point Pinos lacked formalized, safe & accessible amenities for its various users—including trails, parking, and coastal access points. This stretch also represented the only gap of California Coastal Trail between the Monterey and the PG coastlines. Informal narrow dirt paths & “social trails” weaved dangerously through non-uniform parking areas and sensitive dune habitat, while parked vehicles blocked views and dominated the scene. These informal “social trails” connected parking lots and provided informal shoreline access; in many cases they also exacerbated erosion and/or degraded native vegetation.

This project was awarded a Transportation Excellence, Project of the Year Award from the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC)
This project was awarded the Transportation Project of the Year, Rural Cities and Communities by the American Public Works Association (APWA) Monterey Bay Chapter PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 418
Completion of the $4.4M Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) Wet-Dry Weather Stormwater Capture & Diversion Project
This grant funded project allowed for significant stormwater infrastructure improvements including: installation of 1,200 LF of storm water force main, 301 LF of gravity flow storm drain pipeline and 4 manholes, 2 diversion structures, one lift station, and a 60,510-gallon underground reservoir—virtually undetectable beneath the 7th hole of the golf course.

Awarded Project of the Year (Category: Environment) by the American Public Works Association (APWA) Monterey Bay Chapter
This project was also highlighted at the League of California Cities' Public Works Officers Institue Conference
$1.3 Million of pavement maintenance and rehabilitation improvements, including:

Completion of over 185,000 SF of Pavement Rehabilitation on Ocean View Blvd.

Completion of over 631,000 SF of pavement maintenance via the Crack & Slurry Seal Project
Continued emphasis on road rehabilitation and maintenance over the past 5 years has resulted in an overall average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 60, an increase of 5 points since the original condition assessment in 2019 Various vital City facility improvements including:

Repairs to the flooring in the Administrative Services Department Restrooms Replacement to the deteriorated carpets in the Administrative Services Offices Repair of the non-functional heater at the Youth Center Police Department Server Room upgrades to protect vital IT infrastructure Replacement of broken windows, and corresponding lead abatement activities, at the Pacific Grove Musuem of Natural History
Repair of the leaking and deteriorated roof, over the Bird Room, at the Pacific Grove Musuem of Natural History
Fire head sprinkler replacement at the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History Replacement of the deteriorated downspouts at City Hall Replacement of corroded gutters at the Public Works Corporation Yard Repair of the Library Roof
These roof deficiencies were identified during the Library Renewal Project and addressed via this stand-alone CIP project
Recreational amenity improvements including:

Installation of a drinking fountain and bottle fill station at Lovers Point Park Repainting and reroofing of the gazebo at Jewell Park
Installation of a total of 22 picnic tables at George Washington, Arnett and Jewell Parks Installation of new bleachers at George Washington Park Decomposed granite improvements at Arnett and George Washington Parks to assist with surface water drainage
Significant progress on several multiyear, projects including:

Bid/RFP process, award of contract and commencement of construction for the PW Fire Repairs project
This includes permanent electrical infrastructure repairs and repairs to the administrative office/metal warehouse. To date, the admin office and metal warehouse repairs are 95% complete; permanent electrical infrastructure repairs are PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 419
well underway
Development of an ADA compliance assessment and transition plan.

The draft plan is currently under internal review.

Development of the plan entailed a thorough review of all of the City’s facilities and website for ADA compliance.

Ultimately, the plan will provide the City with an approach to addressing ADA compliance long-term via future CIPs.

Attachment 1 provides a list and status of all the FY21/22 CIP projects. Attachment 2 provides before and after photos.

On December 7, 2022, a budget adjustment was authorized to carry forward 15 projects from the FY21/22 CIP to the FY22/23 CIP (Ord. 22-021) to allow for project completion. These projects have still been reported on above and in the attached documents.

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Attachment 1- Project Recap
Attachment 2-Before & After Photos
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 420
Project Code Fund Name Fund # Account Project Name Current Status Carried Over from FY20/21 Carried Over to FY22/23 NOTES CIP18-46 General Fund 63 6031 Point Pinos Coastal Trail Project COMPLETE XX Awarded Transportation Excellence Project of the Year award from TAMC | Awarded Transportation Project of the Year, Small Cities - Rural Communities from the American Public Works Association (APWA) Monterey Bay ChapterThis $2.8M, primarily grant funded, project addressed 0.8 mile of coastline known as Point Pinos. Prior to the project, Point Pinos lacked formalized, safe & accessible amenities for its various users—including trails, parking, and coastal access points. This stretch also represented the only gap of California Coastal Trail between Monterey and the PG coastlines. Informal narrow dirt paths & “social trails” weaved dangerously through nonuniform parking areas and sensitive dune habitat, while parked vehicles blocked views and dominated the scene. These informal “social trails” connected parking lots and provided informal shoreline access; in many cases they also exacerbated erosion and/or degraded native vegetation. This project allowed for vital safety, access, parking, and trail improvements. The scope of work included: construction a formal, ADA compliant, 5-foot wide, DG trail, construction of a resilient, modular cable boardwalk (designed to withstand wave runup/storm events), 2.5 acres of native plant restoration, formalized coastal parking, installation of 10 beach access points, and, construction various storm water improvements. The project locates the trail and parking areas outside the 30-year erosion setback line, except where constrained by the roadway at Crespi Pond. Completed: December 2021. Two-year plant monitoring phase underway through FY24/25.

CIP18-84 ASBS Grant 79 6026 ASBS Storm Water Capture and Diversion Project COMPLETE X Awarded Project of the Year (Category: Environment) by the American Public Works Association (APWA) Monterey Bay Chapter | Highlighted at the League of California Cities' Public Works Officers Institute Conference This $4.4 M grant funded project allowed for significant stormwater infrastructure improvements including: installation of 1,200 LF of storm water force main, 301 LF of gravity flow storm drainpipeline and 4 manholes, 2 diversion structures, one lift station, and a 60,510-gallonunderground reservoir—virtually undetectable beneath the 7th hole of the golf course.This multi-year, multi-million dollar project spanned several fiscal years. Construction commenced in June 2020 and concluded in September 2021. Completed: September 2021 CIP20-13 Sewer 76 6051 Main Sewer Line Imp (Ocean View w/Phase 4 Urban Diversion) COMPLETE XX This project was engineered and put out to bid in conjunction with the ASBS StormwaterCapture and Diversion Project (CIP18-84). Construction documents andplan sets were finalized in FY20/21. The project was put out to bid in February 2020. A constructioncontract was authorized in May 2020 City Council meeting. Construction commencedin June 2020. Construction continued through FY20/21.Completed: September 2021 CIP20-14 Recreation Donation 25 6021 Heater - Youth Center COMPLETE XX Staff experience difficulty obtaining quotes within the project budget. Upon furtherinvestigation, it was determined that repairs could be made to two (2) of the heatersthat service the building as a cost-effective method to address building heating. Theproject was carried forward and repairs were made in FY21/22. Completed: November 2021 FY 21/22 CIP PROJECT RECAP
FY21/22 CIP Recap
PGCC 4-19-23
1 PAGE 421
Project Code Fund Name Fund # Account Project Name Current Status Carried Over from FY20/21 Carried Over to FY22/23 NOTES FY 21/22 CIP PROJECT RECAP
CIP20-17 Mc Indoo 92 6031 Beach Access Steps DEFFERED X Due to COVID-19, the procurement of the metal step nosing, required for the repair,was significantly delayed. The materials were received in late FY19/20. The project wascarried forward to FY20/21 CIP.In FY20/21, it was determined that additional funding was needed to facilitate therepairs. A budget adjustment was made to allocate additional funding. The projectwas carried forward to the FY21/22 CIP.In FY21/22, the project was deferred due to the simultaneous development of the ADA Transition Plan; Instead of repairing the existing steps as currently constructed, staff is awaiting recommendations developed from the ADA transition plan to provide insights into how to improve the existing infrastructure configuration and further enhance accessibility to the beach.

CIP20-19 Strong Disbursement 46 6021 Electric Vehicle Charging COMPLETE X In August 2020, the City Council authorized an agreement for the design andinstallation of the EV charging stations and the donation of two EV fast chargers. Acontract was executed in October 2021 and the development of plans/specificationscommenced. In May 2021, design concluded and construction activities commenced.The project, and remaining balance, was carried forward to the FY21/22 CIP to allowfor project completion. In FY21/22, manufacturing delays for vital electrical infrastructure (cabinets and switch gears) stalled construction. Construction concluded in April 2022. Completed: April 2022 (FY21/22) CIP20-22 Civic Center 14 6021 City Hall - Admin Services Flooring (Laminate & Bathrooms) COMPLETE X In FY19/20, the men's and women's restroom flooring was repainted and coated andthe bathroom windows were tinted to allow for improved privacy.Additional exploration was needed to determine the root cause of the floor moistureand the best path forward for repairs. As a result the project was carried forward intothe FY21/22 CIP.Ultimately, it was determined that the most viable option was for the laminated flooringto be covered with industrial grade carpet with a moisture barrier membrane toprevent water intrusion and minor building improvements to allow improved outdoorwater flow. A contract was executed and repairs were made in FY21/22.Completed: November 2021 (FY21/22) CIP20-25 Koo Estate 93 6042 Downtown Iconic Cypress Tree Moon Lighting COMPLETE X In FY19/20, the initial light specifications were developed and a test light fixture wasobtained to launch a pilot test for feedback. The project was deferred as a COVID-19cost saving measure and the purchase/installation of lighting was funded in theFY20/21 CIP.In FY20/21, a pilot light was installed at the corner of Lighthouse Ave and Grand Ave.Staff performed two (2) surveys, in August 2020 and January 2021, to obtain feedbackfrom the Economic Development Commission, Business Improvement District and CityCouncil. Due to manufacturing delays, the remaining lights were not obtained untilFY21/22. The project was carried forward to the FY21/22 CIP to allow for completion.Installation of the moonlighting was completed in February 2022 (FY21/22).Completed: February 2022 (FY21/22) FY21/22 CIP Recap
PGCC 4-19-23
2 PAGE 422
Project Code Fund Name Fund # Account Project Name Current Status Carried Over from FY20/21 Carried Over to FY22/23 NOTES FY 21/22 CIP PROJECT RECAP
Measure X 17 6041
Sewer 76 6051
CIP21-02 General Fund 63 6041 FY 20/21 Crack and Slurry Seal COMPLETE X In FY20/21, the project was engineered, put out to bid, and a construction contractwas authorized by the City Council on March 3, 2021. Construction commenced inApril 2021 and concluded in May 2021. The scope of work for the project included the crack and slurry seal of 544,200 SF of roadway throughout the City, including 13 road segments and 9 City-owned parking lots, and application of new thermoplastic pavement markings/striping.Crack and Slurry sealing is a vital maintenance activity that helps preserve the City's roads against rapid deterioration and potholes due to inclement weather. This cost effective maintenance treatment helps ensure roads remain in good condition for years to come. Completed: May 2021 CIP21-05 Strong Disbursement 46 6021 Park ADA Compliance Assessment and Transition Plan CONSTRUCTION/ WORK IN PROGRESS X This project aims to develop an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance Assessment and Transition Plan for all City facilities. This plan will provide a comprehensive look at current condition of City facilities, provide guidance and an implementation timeline on needed ADA improvements. Consultants performed a thorough assessment of the City's facilities, parks, website and policies and developed a Draft Assessment and Transition Plan. The draft plan is currently under internal review.

CIP21-07 Strong Disbursement 46 6021 Police Department Server Room Improvements COMPLETE X In FY20/21, Public Works and Police Department staff worked on project developmentto determine the best approach to improve the storage of the IT equipment in the PDserver room in a cost effective manner. The project was carried over to the FY21/22CIP to allow for implementation. Improvements, which included installation of a new AC unit and electrical wiring, were completed in February 2022 (FY21/22).Completed: February 2022 (FY21/22) CIP21-01 COMPLETE X
In FY20/21 this vital street rehabilitation project was engineered, put out to bid, and acontract was awarded at the April 21, 2021 City Council meeting. Construction formallycommenced in early May 2021.The project was carried forward to the FY21/22 CIP to allow for project completion.Project completion occurred in September 2021. The full scope of work completed foreach road segment is noted below. Lower Lighthouse Ave Scope of Work: 70,500 SF of pavement reconstruction, 2,000 SF of 2” AC overlay, reconstruction of 14 curb ramps, installation of 4 catch basins and 1,410LF of subdrain, reconstruction of 85 LF of curb and gutter, reconstruction of 3 manholes,4 sewer spot repairs, and replacement of 310 LF of sewer line.Funston Ave Scope of Work: 41,000 SF of 2.5” AC overlay, 4,600 SF of pavement reconstruction, construction of 2 catch basins, and 6 sewer spot repairs.Completed: September 2021 (FY21/22) FY 20/21 Street Rehab on Lower Lighthouse Ave &
Funston Ave
FY21/22 CIP Recap
PGCC 4-19-23
3 PAGE 423
Project Code Fund Name Fund # Account Project Name Current Status Carried Over from FY20/21 Carried Over to FY22/23 NOTES FY 21/22 CIP PROJECT RECAP
CIP21-10 Mc Indoo 92 6031 Drinking Fountain at Lover's Point Park COMPLETE In FY20/21, project development was completed and a CDP permit was obtained inApril 2021 from the Planning Commission to allow installation of the drinking fountain atLovers Point. Quotes were obtained for installation and corresponding improvements, whichincluded construction of a concrete pad, connection to the water line, andassembling/installing the drinking fountain unit. Project funding was not sufficient for theinstallation, purchase of the unit, and engineering. Grant funding from SustainablePacific Grove was obtained to allow for implementation. The project was carriedforward to the FY21/22 CIP to allow for completion. The water fountain installation was completed in February 2022 (FY21/22).Completed: February 2022 Measure X 17 6041
RMRA (SB1) 47 6041
General Fund 63 6041
Sewer 76 6051
General Fund 63 6041
Measure X 17 6041
CIP22-03 Sewer 76 6051 Phase 9 Sewer Improvements PROJECT DEVELOPMENT X This project will allow the City to make vital sewer infrastructure improvements. Segments of repair were identified based on videoing of sewer lines and maintenance logs. Locations to be addressed include: Railroad Way (between Jewell & Pico Avenues), Arena Avenue (between Sunset Dr & Asilomar Ave), Asilomar Dunes (Within the Sunset Dr ROW and within a 10-foot utility easement located on, 214 Asilomar Boulevard, located between Sunset Dr & Asilomar Ave), Bently Ave (between Short & Heacock), Cypress Ave (Laurel Ave & Short St), and intersection of 17 Mile Dr & Weldon Grove Pl. Segments of this project are located in sensitive dune habitat. As a result, an initial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been produced. The document is circling for public review for the month of April. This item is tentatively scheduled to go before the Planning Commission in May for a Coastal Development Permit. Following all the necessary approvals, the project will be put out to bid.

XX
This project entailed street rehabilitation on two segments of Ocean View Blvd (OVB): (1) OVB from 2nd St to Carmel Ave, and (2) OVB from 17th St to Sea Palm Ave. These road segments were identified based on the City's Pavement Management Program and in-field observations of existing conditions. These heavily trafficked road segments were in "poor" condition with a PCI rating ranging from 33-40. Rehabilitation of these segments vastly improved road conditions & allowed aging underground sewer infrastructure to be addressed prior to road treatments via the Sewer Fund. This project allowed for completion of: 182,000 SF of asphalt concrete (AC) overlay, 3,000 SF of pavement patching , Various stormwater improvements (including installation of 184 LF of storm water pipe, reconstruction of 5 catch basins, construction of 2 new catch basins, and 3 storm drain manhole access points), reconstruction of 300 SF of sidewalk and 140 LF of curb/gutter, reconstruction of 3 curb ramps, construction of 1 new curb ramp, thermoplastic pavement markings, replacement of 725 LF of sanitary sewer pipe, and rehabilitation of 8 manholes.Completed: July 2022The pavement network is managed by harnessing several pavement treatments. Pavement treatments range from full road reconstructions and overlays to maintenance treatments like crack and slurry seals. Each pavement treatment has an appropriate application. Crack and slurry seal treatments are a vital aspect of the city’s pavement maintenance activities. These treatments are utilized to prevent rapid pavement deterioration and potholes due to inclement weather. The PMP was used to identify approximately 631,000 SF of street surface to be crack and slurry sealed at various locations throughout the City. Completed: June 2022

COMPLETECOMPLETE
CIP22-01
FY21/22 Street Rehabilitation
(OVB from 2nd to Carmel & OVB from 17th to Sea
Palm)
CIP22-02 FY21/22 Crack and Slurry Seal
FY21/22 CIP Recap
PGCC 4-19-23
4 PAGE 424
Project Code Fund Name Fund # Account Project Name Current Status Carried Over from FY20/21 Carried Over to FY22/23 NOTES FY 21/22 CIP PROJECT RECAP
CIP22-04 Museum Impvt 8 6021 PG Museum Window Replacement & Lead Abatement COMPLETE X This project allowed for the replacement of 39 cracked and broken windows on the Grand Ave, Central Ave and Courtyard facing sides of the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History. The replacement activities triggered lead abatement activities which was also an integral element of this project.Completed: September 2023 CIP22-05 Museum Impvt 8 6021 PG Museum Fire Sprinkler & Head Replacement COMPLETE This project entailed bringing the existing fire suppression system into compliance by replacing the old sprinkler heads and bringing them up to current standards. Completed: October 2022 CIP22-06 Museum Impvt 8 6021 PG Museum Roof Repair COMPLETE X This project allowed for the repair of the existing roof directly above the Bird Room at the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History. The roof had been leaking and was in dire need of replacement. The scope of work entailed: removal of the existing clay tile roof (~2,784 SF), salvaging the tiles for re-use, installation of a waterproof membrane over the entire roof deck, and reinstallation of the salvaged clay tiles. Completed: March 2023 CIP22-07 Chautauqua 26 6021 Chautauqua Hall Repair (Spot Repair) COMPLETE This project allowed for a spot repair to address a known leak at Chautauqua Hall. The project addressed a small segment of the roof directly above the boy scout hall. The scope of work entailed replacing the shingles around the HVAC unit bent, replacement of the pipe jacks, installation of new underlayment and shingles to match existing roof. The repair was completed and has held up well in recent storms. Completed: January 2022 CIP22-08 Strong Disbursement 46 6021 City Hall Downspout Replacement COMPLETE Deteriorated galvanized steel rain gutters and downspouts, on the court yard and laurel Ave side, of the building were replaced with aluminum downspouts/gutters to ensure proper channeling of water off the building to preserve the roof. Completed: April 2022 CIP22-09 Yount Disbursement Fund 41 6031 George Washington Park Management Plan CONSTRUCTION/ WORK IN PROGRESS X Historically, conflicting opinions on management strategies from community stakeholders have not provided adequate direction to balance long term health and fire suppression of the natural areas. This plan was funded to allow for a set of recommendations to be developed by experts. These recommendations would be reviewed by community stakeholders, providing opportunities to build consensus on management strategies and a clear path forward.The draft GWP Forest Management Plan (FMP) was developed to meet the goals of reducing the risk of a destructive wildfire spreading in the park and to improve the overall forest health within the forested area of the Park. The FMP describes the management strategies the City can embark on, over the 5-year FMP timeframe, to reduce wildfire hazard to the homes surrounding the park and to restore healthy forest conditions to the interior of the Park. The FMP addresses the 17-acres of natural forested area (Zones 2, 3 & 4). The draft plan was made available for public review in September 2022. The item was reviewed by the BNRC in November 2022. The item is tentatively scheduled to be brought forth to the City Council in June 2022.

FY21/22 CIP Recap
PGCC 4-19-23
5 PAGE 425
Project Code Fund Name Fund # Account Project Name Current Status Carried Over from FY20/21 Carried Over to FY22/23 NOTES FY 21/22 CIP PROJECT RECAP
CIP22-10 Koo Estate 93 6031 Lover's Point Pier Repair CONSTRUCTION/ WORK IN PROGRESS X In December 2020, during winter storms the seaward tip of the Lovers Point Pier was severely damaged by wave runup and wave impact forces. A geotechnical and coastal engineering firm was consulted to provide repair recommendations. It was determined that because minimal information on the existing pier structure was available, additional exploration was needed prior to developing repair recommendations. The tip of the pier was closed to ensure safety and will remain closed until repairs can be made.On 12/15/21 the City Council authorized an agreement with GHD for development of a conditions assessment and interim repair solution. Project deliverables including the condition assessment, interim repair design and preliminary information on long-term options are under internal review and will be brought forth to the City Council in May 2023.

CIP22-11 Golf Course 77 6021 HVAC Replacement Golf Course Clubhouse COMPLETE X The non-operable HVAC, which failed due to age, was replaced. Completed: August 2022 CIP22-12 General Fund 63 6054 Del Monte Blvd Storm Water Improvements CONSTRUCTION/ WORK IN PROGRESS X This project allows for the replacement of failed stormwater infrastructure on Del Monte Blvd from Coral St to Esplanade St. These improvements will help ensure surface flow is properly channeled into the stormwater collection network protecting the bay and the Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). The scope of work includes: replacement of 390LF of failed stormwater pipe, installation of 60LF of new stormwater pipe, construction of 3 storm drain access point manholes, reconstruction of 1 catch basin, and construction of 2 new catch basins. A construction contract was awarded at the February 1, 2023 meeting. Construction commenced in March 2023 and is currently underway. It is anticipated construction activities will conclude in May 2023.

Koo Estate 93 6031
Mc Indoo 92 6031
Through the City’s FY21/22 CIP, funding was approved for the replacement of the backstop at 17 Mile Drive Ball Field with a total allocated budget of $24,000. The existing backstop has significantly deteriorated and needs replacement. Projects bids received were well over the allocated budget and ranged from $77,000 - $95,000. The City began to pursue grant funding via the State of California's Per Capital Grant Program to bridge the funding shortfall and make necessary replacements to the heavily used recreation infrastructure. On May 18, 2022, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing the submission of two (2) Per Capita Grant Program Applications to the State of California’s Department of Parks and Recreation.A grant agreement for $96,000 was awarded to the City. This paired with the original project allocations brings the total project allotment to $120,429. Staff is currently in the process of drafting an RFP for the backstop replacement.

CIP22-13 Replace Backstop - PG Municipal Ball Park BIDS/RFPS FY21/22 CIP Recap
PGCC 4-19-23
6 PAGE 426
Project Code Fund Name Fund # Account Project Name Current Status Carried Over from FY20/21 Carried Over to FY22/23 NOTES FY 21/22 CIP PROJECT RECAP
CIP22-14 Yount Disbursement Fund 46 6021 Gutter Replacement - PW Corp Yard COMPLETE This project entailed replacing the gutter above the Mechanical Division bay at the Public Works Yard. The previous gutters had significantly rusted/deteriorated and were no longer adequately channeling rainwater. Replacement of the gutters protects the building structure and prevents a more costly and extensive roof repair project in the future. Completed: March 2022 CIP22-15 General Fund 63 6021 Library Roof Repair COMPLETE In FY20/21, the City completed a $2.5M, multi-year interior renovation of the Library. During the installation of the clerestory elements, deficiencies in the roof were identified. Deficiencies include cracked tiles and damage to the underlayment. It was vital that the roof deficiencies be promptly addressed to prevent water intrusion and protect the Community/City investment recently made to this beloved public asset. This project entailed demolition of the previous roof system, installation of a waterproof membrane and roofing materials, and replacement of cracked tiles at various locations. This was a cost-effective project as it will address roofing elements before they degrade further, preventing a more extensive and costly roof repair project in the future. Completed: January 2021 CIP22-17 General Fund 63 6031 Caledonia Park Children's Playground Picnic Area Improvements COMPLETE X This project included the purchase and installation of 3 new picnic tables to replace existing rotting tables at Caledonia Park. Completed: August 2022 CIP22-18 General Fund 63 6031 Jewell Park Gazebo Repair COMPLETE The project allowed for reroofing, replacement of rotted wood, power washing, priming, and a coat of fresh paint at the Gazebo located at Jewell Park. Completed: February 2022 CIP22-19 General Fund 63 6031 George Washington Ball Park Bleachers COMPLETE This project included the purchase of new metal bleachers to replace the deteriorated bleachers at George Washington Park. Bleacher installation will occur at a later date, as PONY has proposed making improvements to the area prior to the new bleachers being installed. Completed: May 2023 CIP22-20 General Fund 63 6031 GW Park Picnic Tables COMPLETE 10 new picnic tables were installed at George Washington Park replacing the old, deteriorated wood picnic tables. Completed: September 2022 FY21/22 CIP Recap
PGCC 4-19-23
7 PAGE 427
Project Code Fund Name Fund # Account Project Name Current Status Carried Over from FY20/21 Carried Over to FY22/23 NOTES FY 21/22 CIP PROJECT RECAP
CIP22-21 General Fund 63 6031 George Washington Park Children's Playground and ADA compliant playground BIDS/RFPS X At the December 15, 2021 meeting, the City Council allocated $25,000 of funding to allow for installation of ADA compliant playground equipment and equipment for young children (2-5 years old). Initial research revealed $25,000 was not sufficient to allow for purchase and installation of suitable equipment. City staff began to pursue grant funding via the California Department of Parks & Recreation's Per Capita Grant Program. On May 18, 2022, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing the submission of two (2) Per Capita Grant Program Applications to the State of California’s Department of Parks and Recreation.A grant agreement for $81,952 was awarded to the City. This paired with the original project allocations brings the total project allotment to $106,952. An RFP was issued and closed in March 2022. The proposal submitted is currently being reviewed by Staff and will be brought forth to the Recreation Board at their May meeting.

CIP22-22 General Fund 63 6031 Arnett Park Picnic Tables COMPLETE 3 new cedar wood picnic tables were installed at Arnett Park, replacing the old deteriorated wood tables. Completed: August 2022 CIP22-23 General Fund 63 6031 Elmarie Dyke & Arnett Park Decomposed Granite COMPLETE A 20ft section of broken 6" PVC stormwater pipe was replaced and a larger drain inlet was installed by in house crews to help channel surface water flow. DG was distributed throughout the park filling in crevasses and low spots to help divert and channel water to the new drain. Completed: September 2022 TRC21-02 General Fund 63 6021 PW Fire Repair Project CONSTRUCTION/ WORK IN PROGRESS X The Public Works Fire Repair project is well underway. Award of contract for repairs to the admin office and metal warehouse were authorized at the January 19, 2022 City Council Meeting. A contract for the permanent electrical infrastructure repairs was authorized at the August 3, 2022 City Council Meeting. Repairs to the administrative office and metal warehouse are 95% complete. The electrical infrastructure replacement is well underway. Please note this project is reimbursable by the City's insurer.

FY21/22 CIP Recap
PGCC 4-19-23
8 PAGE 428

ASBS WET-DRY WEATHER STORM

WATER CAPTURE & REUSE PROJECT
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
BEFORE
AFTER
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 429

ASBS WET-DRY WEATHER STORM

WATER CAPTURE & REUSE PROJECT
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
Construction
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 430

ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING

STATION
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
BEFORE
AFTER
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 431
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
BEFORE
AFTER
Modular, cable boardwalk

POINT PINOS COASTAL TRAIL
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 432
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
BEFORE
AFTER
Path Improvements

POINT PINOS COASTAL TRAIL
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 433
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
BEFORE
AFTER
Parking & Path Improvements

POINT PINOS COASTAL TRAIL
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 434
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
BEFORE
AFTER
Safety & Path Improvements

POINT PINOS COASTAL TRAIL
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 435
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
BEFORE
AFTER
Beach Access Points

POINT PINOS COASTAL TRAIL
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 436
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
Resilient, modular cable boardwalk

POINT PINOS COASTAL TRAIL
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 437
FY20/21 STREET REHABILITATION

LOWER LIGHTHOUSE AVE & FUNSTON AVE
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
BEFORE
AFTER
Lower Lighthouse Ave
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 438
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
BEFORE
AFTER
Lower Lighthouse Ave
FY20/21 STREET REHABILITATION

LOWER LIGHTHOUSE AVE & FUNSTON AVE
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 439
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
BEFORE
AFTER
FY21/22 STREET REHABILITATION

OCEAN VIEW BLVD
OVB from 17th St to Sea Palm
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 440
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
BEFORE
AFTER
FY21/22 STREET REHABILITATION

OCEAN VIEW BLVD
OVB 2nd to Carmel
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 441
FY21/22 CIP RECAP AFTER
FY21/22 STREET REHABILITATION

OCEAN VIEW BLVD
Road & Ped Improvements
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 442
FY21/22 CIP RECAP NEW!
New Water Fountain & Bottle Fill Station

DRINKING FOUNTAIN

LOVERS POINT
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 443
FY21/22 CIP RECAP
FY21/22 CRACK & SLURRY SEAL

PROJECT
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 444
FY21/22 CIP RECAP AFTER

PG MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

WINDOW REPLACEMENT & LEAD ABATMENT
BEFORE
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 445
FY21/22 CIP RECAP BEFORE

PG MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

ROOF REPAIR
AFTER
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 446
FY21/22 CIP RECAP AFTER

JEWELL PARK

GAZEBO REPAIR
BEFORE
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 447
FY21/22 CIP RECAP NEW!

ARNETT PARK & GWP

PICNIC TABLES
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 448
FY21/22 CIP RECAP

PW FIRE REPAIR

PROJECT
Construction Process
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 449
FY21/22 CIP RECAP AFTER

PW FIRE REPAIR

PROJECT
BEFORE
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 450
FY21/22 CIP RECAP AFTER

PW FIRE REPAIR

PROJECT
BEFORE
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 451
FY21/22 CIP RECAP AFTER

PW GUTTER REPLACEMENT

PROJECT
BEFORE
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 452
Agenda No. 12 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Bill Peake, Mayor, Luke Coletti, Councilmember, Lori, McDonnell, Councilmember
MEETING DATE: April 19, 2023
SUBJECT: 2023/2025 Council Goals and Workplan
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Review and approve 2023/2025 Goals and Workplan shown in Attachments 1 and 2.

DISCUSSION
As per Council Goals Policy 000-26, Council engaged Renne Public Management Group (RPMG) to assist in developing FY 23/24 and 24/25 goals. On January 25, 2023 a meeting was held to create a draft list of Council goals. At that time a subcommittee was formed with Councilmembers McDonnell and Coletti and Mayor Peake to meet with City Manager Harvey and develop a refined list of goals, with milestones and responsibilities, for Council review and adoption.

Under RPMG guidance, City Council goals were to be developed in three parts: Community, Operational and Mandates. Community goals were developed by the subcommittee in coordination with the City Manager and RMPG using Council’s input from the January 25 meeting. Operational and mandated goals were developed by City staff and RMPG and were later combined into a common set (operational goals).

As a result of subcommittee and staff efforts, the attached goals and workplan were developed. The City Council is responsible for providing oversight of all goals and associated workplans.

Attachment 1, Community goals, includes a workplan (milestones and responsibilities) accompanying each goal. Attachment 2 contains Operational goals for FY 23/24. Attachment 3 contains items discussed on January 25 but were not incorporated into the final goals, hence the ‘parking lot’ designation.

Attachment 4, a RPMG Goals Report, details the process we followed.

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 453
There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
1 - Community Goals
2 - Operational Goals
3 - Parking Lot
4 - RPMG Goals Report
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 454
COMMUNITY GOALS & WORK PLAN 2023-25
NEW DOTS MANDATE GOALS MILESTONES FOR 2023

QUARTER OF
COMPLETION (Fiscal
Year)

LEAD DEPARTMENT
Submit comprehensive recreation plan to City Council for expanded services, activities and programs; receive Council input. (Plan components include: recruitment strategy, proposed budget including additional FT and Seasonal PT employee hours, expanded hours of operation for all recreational facilities including the Lighthouse. Plan will also explain the delta between 2019 service offerings to what is proposed).

Q4
FY22/23 Rec/PW/CMO/ASD
Recruit and onboard additional Seasonal PTE (current and expanded summer 2023 programming).

Q4
FY22/23 Rec/PW/CMO
Recruit and onboard additional FTE. Q1
FY23/24 Rec/PW/CMO
Complete implementation of comprehensive recreation plan (that includes expanding hours, activities and services for the community).

Q1
FY23/24 Rec/PW/CMO
YES 7 (6 + 1) NO Expand or reinstate afterschool and recreational activities, including recreation and sports programs. Same milestones as above. Q4 FY22/23 Rec/PW/CMO/ASD Assess facility/rental fees and submit new proposed fee schedule to the City Council for consideration.

Q1
FY23/24 ASD/Rec
Implement new fee schedule. Q1
FY23/24 ASD/Rec
QUARTER Fiscal year
Q1 July-Aug-Sept
Q2 Oct-Nov-Dec
Q3 Jan-Feb-March
Q4 April-May-June
YES
2 No
Evaluate fees for use/rental of City facilities (e.g.

Chautauqua Hall, etc.) to incentivize more use by the
community.

YES
4 NO Expand hours and services of the Youth Center.

PRIORITY AREA: Recreation Services
POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove offers robust and accessible recreational and cultural activities for all ages.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 455
COMMUNITY GOALS & WORK PLAN 2023-25
NEW DOTS MANDATE GOALS MILESTONES FOR 2023

QUARTER OF
COMPLETION (Fiscal
Year)

LEAD DEPARTMENT
Select consultant to recommend a new approach for Capital Improvement Program, including the development of asset management schedules, recommended funding and prioritization to address ongoing repair and replacement of City facilities, assets and infrastructure. Select a consultant to develop assest management schedules and recommended funding to address repair and replacement of City faiclities, assets and infrastructure as part of defining a new approach to CIP process.

Q1
FY23/24
Implement recommendations for the development and adoption of a new Capital Improvement Plan, effective July 1, 2024, including a new asset management program.

Q1
FY23/24
Retain the services of a qualified firm to assess the City's multi-modal transportation network, including all associated transportation policies and the proposed general plan transportation element, and to draft a Complete Streets Policy and safe routes to school map - specific to the needs of the Pacific Grove community.

Q3
FY23/24 PW/CDD
Develop and adopt a draft policy and safe routes to school map; shepherd through the Traffic Safety Commission for feedback and public review.

Q4
FY23/24 PW/CDD
Incorporate policy elements for implementation as a part of subsequent CIP streets infrastructure improvements.

Q1
FY24/25 PW/CDD
QUARTER Fiscal year
Q1 July-Aug-Sept
Q2 Oct-Nov-Dec
Q3 Jan-Feb-March
Q4 April-May-June
YES 5 (2+3)
Complete Streets Policy: adopt a plan to implement the
design of safe walking paths, sidewalks and bike lanes, including signage.

NO PW/ASD/CMO
PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove prioritizes capital needs and maintains community assets YES Enhance the process, prioritization, scheduling and completion of CIP projects. 3
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 456
COMMUNITY GOALS & WORK PLAN 2023-25
NEW DOTS MANDATE GOALS MILESTONES FOR 2023

QUARTER OF
COMPLETION (Fiscal
Year)

LEAD DEPARTMENT
Receive recommendations from City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Subcommittee to authorize funds for a consultant; present to BNRC and then City Council for review and additional input.

Q1
FY23/24 PW/CDD
Present proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan to BNRC and then City Council for review and adoption.

Q3
FY23/24 PW/CDD
Complete comprehensive Title 12 revisions; revisions focus on replanting compliance and tree appeal process; to be reviewed by the BNRC.

Q1
FY23/24 PW
Complete comprehensive Title 12 revisions; revisions focus on replanting compliance and tree appeal process; to be reviewed City Council.

Q2
FY23/24 PW
Plant and maintain (e.g., additional labor) 150 native trees on public property and public right-of-way.

Q4
FY23/24 PW
Train CSOs in wildlife protection. Q1
FY23/24 PD/CMO
Draft and issue RFQ for Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments. Q4 FY22/23 CMO/CDD
Review and rank RFQ responses; make recommendation for City Council to award contract.

Q1
FY23/24 CDD/CMO
Hire a consultant to conduct biological assessment of GWP in order to update and recommend implementation measures of the GWP master plan.

Q4
FY22/23 PW
Receive and review Monterey Fire Department's Community Wildfire Protection Plan for impact to GWP (harmonize and align).

Q1
FY23/24 MFD/PW
Implement Council adopted policies for GWP Master Plan in alignment with approved City Council direction.

Q2
FY23/24 PW/MFD
QUARTER Fiscal year
Q1 July-Aug-Sept
Q2 Oct-Nov-Dec
Q3 Jan-Feb-March
Q4 April-May-June
NO
NO
NO 4 NO Protect Wildlife and Habitat.

Review, update and implement George Washington Park
Master Plan. NO 2
PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove implements environmentally sustainable practices that protect wildlife and the coastal community.

Release a public draft of LCP amendments for review and City Council adoption; submit to California Coastal Commission for LCP Amendment.

Q4
FY23/24 CDD/CMO
YES 4 NO Initiate and Complete a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

YES 2
Initiate and complete a Citywide Tree Improvement and
Management Plan (e.g., planting in public areas,
sustainable tree maintenance and removal strategies,
review and replacement of non-native plants and species, etc.).

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 457
COMMUNITY GOALS & WORK PLAN 2023-25
NEW DOTS MANDATE GOALS MILESTONES FOR 2023

QUARTER OF
COMPLETION (Fiscal
Year)

LEAD DEPARTMENT
Review, audit and conduct field visits for prior second unit report. Q2 FY23/24
Present findings and staff recommendations to City Council for direction.

Q3
FY23/24
Prepare and present draft 6th Cycle Housing Element to the Planning Commission, including DEIR (if necessary).

Q3
FY23/24
Submit draft 6th Cycle Housing Element to HCD for comments. Q3 FY23/24
Integrate HCD revisions into draft 6th Cycle Housing Element. Q3 FY23/24
Prepare and present draft 6th Cycle Housing Element to the City Council for final adoption and EIR certification (if necessary).

Q3 and Q4
FY23/24 and Q1 FY
24/25
Prepare 6th Cycle Housing Element draft with Rincon Consultants to deteremine an inventory of feasible development sites for affordable housing.

Q3
FY23/24
Determine outside developers' interest in sites selected in Housing Element to develop affordable housing.

Q4
FY23/24 and
beyond
City Council review and consideration of preferred site, including selection of preferred market and/or non-profit developer.

Q4
FY23/24 and
beyond
QUARTER Fiscal year
Q1 July-Aug-Sept
Q2 Oct-Nov-Dec
Q3 Jan-Feb-March
Q4 April-May-June
1 Explore and assess the grandfathering of existing nonconforming ADU's NO 1 YES
NO
CDD
Initiate a feasibility and site selection process for the design and construction of an affordable housing project
Complete Housing Element Update (MANDATED)
YES
PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove supports a diversity of affordable housing opportunities.

YES 1
YES
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 458
Operational Goals FY 23-24
1 *These initiatives reflect a combination of mandated, required or compliance-related activities that need to be implemented over the upcoming fiscal year.

Administrative Services Department (Includes Finance, Risk Management, IT and Cemetery)
• Implement the grant management policy and related forms, with the goal of developing a collaborative formal process with departments on recordkeeping and billing
• Expand electronic fund transfer (EFT) offerings for vendor payments • Conduct a business license audit
• Evaluate costs and benefits associated with adding a receivables module to the City’s financial software system
• Complete the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and the annual budget document and receive the Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting, Distinguished Budget Presentation, and the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers Operating Budget Excellence Awards*
• Receive unmodified or “clean” opinions on various mandated reports, including the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), Single Audit of Federal Grants Report, and the TAMC Measure X Compliance Report.* • Create a City-wide online event calendar for employees to assist with identifying upcoming safety classes, Emergency Operation Center trainings, celebrations, and local events (accessible via City intranet)
• Update the Police Department's IT infrastructure and security to meet DOJ and CJIS security requirements.*
• Continue GIS Master Plan Implementation (Year 3/5 in Fiscal Year 23/24, implementation of public facing systems that will assist in viewing spatial data) • Fully implement the Laserfiche Documents Management System • Implement Inventory and Patch Management System
• Develop, implement, and conducting training on an Asbestos Management Plan* • Develop an annual safety training calendar, which includes trainings for a complete year
• Conduct mock OSHA safety inspections with assistance from CJPIA • Launch the Public Portal for the Cemetery website to provide genealogy information, as well as available site data
• Consider and evaluate options for leasing or facility rental use of the Little Chapel • Consider consulting services to assess options for a Cemetery Master Plan or Cemetery Management Plan
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 459
Operational Goals FY 23-24
2 *These initiatives reflect a combination of mandated, required or compliance-related activities that need to be implemented over the upcoming fiscal year.

City Manager (includes City Clerk, Human Resources, Economic Development and Public Information)
• Work to further solidify and strengthen key stakeholder relationships with community organizations and institutions, partner agencies, regional organizations and State agencies through enhanced outreach, increased standing meetings and City advocacy
• Implement recommendations suggested within the Small Business Recovery Plan • Review and revise offerings of PickPG.org economic development website • Improve public information offerings through better posts, enhanced storytelling and increased City Department coordination
• Complete contracts online effort and define other records for record management system inclusion
• Implement Public Records Request Electronic and Boards & City Commissions database systems within Agenda Management System.*
• Increase participation in local and regional job fairs to expand recruitment efforts • Introduce a marketing campaign to better attract job applicants • Adopt a recruitment and retention policy
• Provide City-wide training on handling uncivil interactions and difficult situations • Adopt a City employee policy promoting workplace civility and anti-bullying behavior
Community Development Department (Includes Planning, Building & Safety, Housing and Code Enforcement)
• Begin Focused General Plan Update by the start of FY 23/24* • Finalize Housing Element and Submit to HCD with CEQA IS/MND* • Working with the Historic Resources Commission, remove 60 properties from the HRI
• Streamline Title 23; allowing for more projects to be approved administratively to better assist the applicants in a timely manner.
• Update the Planning City website and the Water Credit City website for on-line application submission and payment.
• Enhance proactive code enforcement for parklets and multi-family housing PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 460
Operational Goals FY 23-24
3 *These initiatives reflect a combination of mandated, required or compliance-related activities that need to be implemented over the upcoming fiscal year.
• Maintain next day inspection requests.
• Update handout material in compliance with the new 2022 CA Codes.

Library Department
• Create poetry programs every month
• Resume Meet the Author events
• Increase teen participation
• Engage new community partners in the gallery series
• Increase Senior and school outreach through electric vehicle • Highlight community partners (Museum, Asilomar) by sharing exhibits and resources, purchase display case
Police Department
• Draft Police Department-specific Recruitment & Retention and Employee Wellness Plans
• Expand transparency and community outreach efforts to include additional events and programs
• Address property and theft crimes by increasing education efforts, surveillance camera program and a reinstated Neighborhood Watch Program • Increase community education regarding impacts of narcotic use through expanded information campaigns (including D.A.R.E.), and increased narcotic offense investigations/overdose calls for service
• Improve Traffic Safety by hosting pedestrian and bicycle safety workshops, partnering with Community Development, Public Works and CalTrans to further address roadway safety, and advancing proposals for a parking study Public Works Department (Includes Recreation)
• Revamp Capital Improvement Program approach in accordance with City Council direction
• Receive final draft of comprehensive ADA audit, and develop recommendations for increased compliance*
• Work locally and regionally to reduce pollutants, both natural and manmade, from entering the bay*
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 461
Operational Goals FY 23-24
4 *These initiatives reflect a combination of mandated, required or compliance-related activities that need to be implemented over the upcoming fiscal year.
• Increase the City's Pavement Index rating
• Reduce the number of workplace injuries
• Cross training of staff between divisions and equipment • Increase volunteer program awareness and participation • Enhance recreation department programming
• Streamline the park and facility reservation process
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 462
COUNCIL GOALS PARKING LOT 2023-25
Value/Priority Area Projects/Priorities
Update local coastal program
Create & implement disaster/emergency
response protocols
(communications/outreach, CERT)
Master Plan for Parks
Reopen Lighthouse (5 days a week)
Art & Music Events
Sublease City building to a daycare center
Open the public pool for more days per week
Expand child care options
Create a model similar to boys & girls club
Assess trail restoration and storm damage to
determine best options w/ climate change
realities in mind
Create map of safe routes to school
Enhance/Beautify Downtown
Landscape/Hardscape/Permable Surfaces
Affordable Housing Implement Housing Element
Destination City Identify stakeholders & partners (e.g., Chamber of Commerce)
Equity/DEI Evaluate all projects and priorities through lens of Equity/DEI
IT Update City Website
Finance Update regarding CalPERS unfunded liabilities
and OPEB
Administration/Governance Collect and organize preexisting City policies and update Council re same
Enhance revenues for ATC and Kimpton hotel (hotels on holding pattern, waiting for developer or permits)
Moved from Goals by Subcommittee
Start recruitment process for seasonal summer employee (a strategy to achieve goals)
Re-paint school crossings every year prior to start of school year (a maintenance standard, not a Council initiative)
Assessment of Citywide electrical distribution system (council direction to staff, not a goal)
Update the Conservation/Open Space Element(s) of the 1994 General Plan (combined with other goals)
Create Marketing Plan to Promote and Enhance Pacific Grove as a Tourism Destination (eg. partner with Chamber of Commerce, etc) Environmental Stewardship
Recreation Services
Infrastructure
Plan for the development of a Sports Center
Collaborate with School District (it's a strategy to achieve goals) PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 463
1 | Page
City of Pacific Grove – City Council Goal Se�ng
Final Report
Introduc�on
In accordance with Council Goals Policy 000-26, the City of Pacific Grove’s newly seated City Council conducts a goal se�ng process to set priori�es that respond to community needs and guide budgetary decisions for the coming two fiscal years. For its process, the City Council contracted with Renne Public Management Group (RPMG) to assist in goal se�ng and Work Plan development and facilita�on. The City Council goal se�ng session was held on January 25 in the Council Chambers with Mayor Bill Peake presiding and facilita�on led by RPMG staff Wendy Sommer and Jeff Becerra.

The focus of the current priority se�ng session was development of City Council-iden�fied community goals. These Council goals, together with staff-developed opera�onal and mandatory goals, collec�vely form a citywide Work Plan that covers Fiscal Years 23/24 and 24/25 and provides guidance for how resources should be allocated in the City’s Opera�ng and Capital Improvement Budgets.

The dra� Work Plan, consis�ng of four priority areas, 12 goals and 33 associated milestones, is atached for City Council considera�on, input and approval (Exhibit A). Staff, led by City Manager Ben Harvey, will use the adopted Work Plan to develop the FY 23/24 proposed budget, implement the milestones to comple�on, and regularly update the Council on Work Plan status.

Background and Priority Se�ng Summary
In advance of the priority se�ng session, Wendy Sommer met one-on-one with the City Manager, the Mayor, and City Council to beter understand the goals and objec�ves for the City.

Three areas of policy consensus emerged from these interviews:
 Enhanced Recrea�on
 Environmental Stewardship
 Infrastructure Maintenance
Ms. Sommer began the January 25 priority se�ng session by presen�ng her findings to the City Council, including an overview of what she heard from Councilmembers on the intent and objec�ves for the priority se�ng session. During the session, the City’s adopted core values of Leadership, Inclusiveness, Integrity, Collabora�on and Stewardship were provided as a point reference for goal se�ng. These core values serve as norms for how the City Council desires to work with the community, organiza�on and other interested stakeholders for achieving the PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 464
2 | Page
City’s goals and objec�ves. A number of Council members expressed a desire to achieve transparency and equity through city programs and ques�oned whether the City should have specific goals to achieve these objec�ves. The recommenda�on from RPMG is rather than have them as specific and measurable goals, the City Council and City Manager should regularly reference these core values when designing and implemen�ng community programs, services and ac�vi�es. In summary, the City’s core values or norms should be well understood as founda�onal principles for serving the community, including throughout the implementa�on and monitoring of the City’s Work Plan.

Ms. Sommer went over agreements, guidelines, roles and expecta�ons for the mee�ng:

Engagement Agreements
• Be present.
• Listen with curiosity rather than judgment.
• Assume good inten�ons.
• Appreciate feedback.
• Recognize common interest and value different views.
• Support collabora�on – collec�ve wisdom.

Discussion Guidelines
• Limit discussion to high-level policies and ini�a�ves, not day-to-day opera�ons, not “how to’s.”
• Ini�a�ves and ac�vi�es presented are reflec�ons of what came up during interviews - can be modified, added, or deleted.
• Don’t worry about exact goal wording.

Roles and Expecta�ons
• The City Council is responsible for establishing collec�ve goals and providing staff with clear policy direc�on, while allowing staff to develop and carry out the Work Plan to achieve those goals.
• The City Manager and staff are accountable for developing a detailed work plan based on policy guidance, and recommending necessary resources. • Members of the public are able to provide input on the city’s goals.

Ms. Sommer then went through a detailed summary of specific goals that Councilmembers expressed during the one-on-one interviews. As a result of this review and subsequent discussion, the City Council agreed that Affordable Housing should also be added to the list of three policy consensus categories above. The City Council then engaged in a dot exercise, placing a limited number of dot “s�ckers” next to goals they wanted to be priori�zed from the agreed-upon categories. This served the purpose of visually iden�fying areas that rose to the top for priori�za�on. Mr. Becerra then reviewed the results of the dot exercise to confirm the City Council’s input in prepara�on for the Work Plan development.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 465
3 | Page
At the conclusion of the priority se�ng session, the Council agreed to ini�ate the following:
• Iden�fy a Council Subcommitee to finalize goal language. • Allow staff to
o Translate the Council’s goals into ac�onable steps (u�lizing the SMART goal model).
o Iden�fy major milestones and �melines.
o Provide recommenda�ons on budgetary resources and/or constraints (which will be iden�fied as part of the City’s regular budget development process). • Have a proposed Work Plan presented by staff at a subsequent regular mee�ng for Council review and approval.

Goal Refinement and Work Plan Development
On February 1, 2023, the City Council voted unanimously to appoint a City Council Goals Ad hoc Subcommitee comprised of Mayor Peake and City Councilmembers Cole� and McDonnell to assist the City Council with finalizing the goal language and to work with the City Manager to iden�fy appropriate milestones and �melines for comple�on.

Working collabora�vely with the City Manager and RPMG staff Nelson Fialho and Wendy Sommer, the Subcommitee met three �mes in February and March to review and refine the goals. Items receiving “dots” at the January 25 mee�ng were individually discussed. Some items were deferred or removed from the final goals list and placed in the Parking Lot (Exhibit B), primarily because they were strategies to achieve goals. However, the City Council may decide to move a Parking Lot item back to the Work Plan, if desired.

Following refinement of the goals by the Subcommitee, the City Manager and staff developed the corresponding milestones, with guidance from RPMG. The milestones were meant to be high level, and prepared using SMART principles (specific, measurable, achievable, realis�c, and �me-bound), where applicable. The Subcommitee, with the assistance of the City Manager and RPMG, discussed and edited the milestones to ensure further clarity for the community and organiza�on.

Separately, opera�onal goals were prepared by each city department under the direc�on of the City Manager and atached as Exhibit C. The City Manager and staff will address these goals as part of the development of the annual budget. In addi�on, mandatory, required and/or compliance-related opera�onal goals are appropriately footnoted for review and reference.

The proposed Work Plan contains four categories:
 Recrea�on Services
 Infrastructure
 Environmental Stewardship
 Affordable Housing
Within the priority areas, there are 12 goals and 33 milestones.

PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 466
4 | Page
Ac�on Item and Next Steps
The dra� Work Plan, including the reference exhibits herein, are submited to the City Council for review and approval. Upon City Council adop�on, the City Manager will ini�ate implementa�on of the plan and seek funding for specific projects, programs and ini�a�ves during the Fiscal Year 23/24 budget cycle. Following adop�on of the Opera�ng and Capital Improvement Budgets, RPMG recommends the City Manager present quarterly updates of the Work Plan at regularly scheduled City Council mee�ngs.

Exhibits:

A. Proposed City Council Goals Work Plan 2023-24
B. List of Parking Lot Items
C. City Department Opera�onal Goals 2023-24
PGCC 4-19-23
PAGE 467

Pacific Grove City CouncilApril 19, 2023

Pacific Grove City Council
April 19, 2023